相关论文: Peer reviewers equally critique theory, method, an…

Amidst the ever-expanding realm of scientific production and the proliferation of predatory journals, the focus on peer review remains paramount for scientometricians and sociologists of science. Despite this attention, there is a notable…

This study examines a fundamental yet overlooked function of peer review: its role in exposing reviewers to new and unexpected ideas. Leveraging a natural experiment involving over half a million peer review invitations covering both…

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…

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…

Peer review is a key activity intended to preserve the quality and integrity of scientific publications. However, in practice it is far from perfect. We aim at understanding how reviewers, including those who have won awards for reviewing,…

Personal connections between creators and evaluators of scientific works are ubiquitous, and the possibility of bias ever-present. Although connections have been shown to bias prospective judgments of (uncertain) future performance, it is…

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…

Scientometers and sociologists of science have spilled much ink on the topic of peer review over the past twenty years, given its primordial role in a context marked by the exponential growth of scientific production and the proliferation…

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…

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…

Across scholarly communities, manuscripts face similar evaluative rituals: editors invite experts to privately assess submissions through formal peer reviews. This closed, loosely structured, and publisher-mediated process is now being…

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…

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…

In computer science, students could benefit from more opportunities to learn important, high-level concepts and to improve their learning skills. Peer review is one method to encourage this by providing students with the opportunity to…

The number of scientific publications is constantly rising, increasing the strain on the review process. The number of submissions is actually higher, as each manuscript is often reviewed several times before publication. To face the deluge…

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…

Peer assessment has established itself as a critical pedagogical tool in academic settings, offering students timely, high-quality feedback to enhance learning outcomes. However, the efficacy of this approach depends on two factors: (1) the…

With the rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs), the academic community has faced unprecedented disruptions, particularly in the realm of academic communication. The primary function of peer review is improving the quality of…

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…

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…