Related papers: The Social Structure of Consensus in Scientific Re…

Peer review aims to detect flaws and deficiencies in the design and interpretation of studies, and ensure the clarity and quality of their presentation. However, it has been questioned whether peer review fulfils this function. Studies have…

One of the virtues of peer review is that it provides a self-regulating selection mechanism for scientific work, papers and projects. Peer review as a selection mechanism is hard to evaluate in terms of its efficiency. Serious efforts to…

The peer review process is often regarded as the gatekeeper of scientific integrity, yet increasing evidence suggests that it is not immune to bias. Although structural inequities in peer review have been widely debated, much less attention…

Is it possible to reliably evaluate the quality of peer reviews? We study this question driven by two primary motivations -- incentivizing high-quality reviewing using assessed quality of reviews and measuring changes to review quality in…

Peer review shapes which scientific claims enter the published record, but its internal dynamics are hard to measure at scale because reviewer criticism and author revision are usually embedded in long, unstructured correspondence. Here we…

Citations play an important role in researchers' careers as a key factor in evaluation of scientific impact. Many anecdotes advice authors to exploit this fact and cite prospective reviewers to try obtaining a more positive evaluation for…

Peer review is a process designed to produce a fair assessment of research quality before the publication of scholarly work in a journal. Demographics, nepotism, and seniority have been all shown to affect reviewer behavior suggesting the…

How do author perceptions match up to the outcomes of the peer-review process and perceptions of others? In a top-tier computer science conference (NeurIPS 2021) with more than 23,000 submitting authors and 9,000 submitted papers, we survey…

Scholarly journals rely on peer review to identify the science most worthy of publication. Yet finding willing and qualified reviewers to evaluate manuscripts has become an increasingly challenging task, possibly even threatening the…

To this date, the efficacy of the scientific publishing enterprise fundamentally rests on the strength of the peer review process. The journal editor or the conference chair primarily relies on the expert reviewers' assessment, identify…

Traditional closed peer review systems, which have played a central role in scientific publishing, are often slow, costly, non-transparent, stochastic, and possibly subject to biases - factors that can impede scientific progress and…

This study examines whether there is any evidence of bias in two areas of common critique of open, non-anonymous peer review - and used in the post-publication, peer review system operated by the open-access scholarly publishing platform…

In order to capture the effects of social ties in knowledge diffusion, this paper examines the publication network that emerges from the collaboration of researchers, using citation information as means to estimate knowledge flow. For this…

Critique between peers plays a vital role in the production of scientific knowledge. Yet, there is limited empirical evidence on the origins of criticism, its effects on the papers and individuals involved, and its visibility within the…

Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. The aims of this study are to analyse the demographics of corresponding authors choosing double blind peer review, and…

A large number of published studies have examined the properties of either networks of citation among scientific papers or networks of coauthorship among scientists. Here, using an extensive data set covering more than a century of physics…

Modern machine learning and computer science conferences are experiencing a surge in the number of submissions that challenges the quality of peer review as the number of competent reviewers is growing at a much slower rate. To curb this…

Scientific publishing seems to be at a turning point. Its paradigm has stayed basically the same for 300 years but is now challenged by the increasing volume of articles that makes it very hard for scientists to stay up to date in their…

Manuscripts have a complex development process with multiple influencing factors. Reconstructing this process is difficult without large-scale, comparable data on different versions of manuscripts. Preprints are increasingly available and…

It is not easy to rationalize how peer review, as the current grassroots of science, can work based on voluntary contributions of reviewers. There is no rationale to write impartial and thorough evaluations. Consequently, there is no risk…