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

The advancement of various fields of science depends on the actions of individual scientists via the peer review process. The referees' work patterns and stochastic nature of decision making both relate to the particular features of…

A question often asked by authors is how long would it take for the peer review process. Peer review duration has been concerned much by authors and attracted much attention in academia these years. Existing research on this field focuses…

Peer review in academic research aims not only to ensure factual correctness but also to identify work of high scientific potential that can shape future research directions. This task is especially critical in fast-moving fields such as…

Context: Pre-publication peer review of scientific articles is considered a key element of the research process in software engineering, yet it is often perceived as not to work fully well. Objective: We aim at understanding the perceptions…

Bibliometric analysis has firmly conquered its place as an instrument for evaluation and international comparison of performance levels. Consequently, differences in coverage by standard bibliometric databases installed a dichotomy between…

Peer review and citation metrics are two means of gauging the value of scientific research, but the lack of publicly available peer review data makes the comparison of these methods difficult. Mathematics can serve as a useful laboratory…

Peer review is the primary means of quality control in academia; as an outcome of a peer review process, program and area chairs make acceptance decisions for each paper based on the review reports and scores they received. Quality of…

A large host of scientific journals and conferences solicit peer reviews from multiple reviewers for the same submission, aiming to gather a broader range of perspectives and mitigate individual biases. In this work, we reflect on the role…

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…

Scholars present their new research at seminars and conferences, and send drafts to peers, hoping to receive comments and suggestions that will improve the quality of their work. Using a dataset of papers published in economics journals,…

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…

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 `peer-review system' in the context of judging research contributions, is one of the prime steps undertaken to ensure the quality of the submissions received, a significant portion of the publishing budget is spent towards successful…

Peer review by experts is central to the evaluation of grant proposals, but little is known about how gender and disciplinary differences shape the content and tone of grant peer review reports. We analyzed 39,280 review reports submitted…

In this work, we try to answer the question of which method, peer review vs bibliometrics, better predicts the future overall scholarly impact of scientific publications. We measure the agreement between peer review evaluations of Web of…

The purpose of this study is to analyze the research article publishing with special reference to preparing to publish and peer reviewing. Peer reviewing is the process required for standardizing any publications. Manuscript writing is an…

Background: Research software is software developed by and/or used by researchers, across a wide variety of domains, to perform their research. Because of the complexity of research software, developers cannot conduct exhaustive testing. As…

Peer review is at the heart of modern science. As submission numbers rise and research communities grow, the decline in review quality is a popular narrative and a common concern. Yet, is it true? Review quality is difficult to measure, and…

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…

Peer reviewing is a central component in the scientific publishing process. We present the first public dataset of scientific peer reviews available for research purposes (PeerRead v1) providing an opportunity to study this important…