Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for library and Information Science (한국비블리아학회지)

Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science (한국비블리아학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Automated Reviewers Recommendation on Online Submission System in Journal Publishing

국내외 학술지 투고관리시스템의 심사위원 추천 기능 분석

  • 신은자 (세종대학교 미디어커뮤니케이션학과, 세종대학교 미디어 어낼리틱스 연구소 )
  • Received : 2022.11.15
  • Accepted : 2022.11.27
  • Published : 2022.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Finding and selecting proper reviewers is a burden on the publisher of the journal. In order to solve this problem, the online submission system started to recommend appropriate reviewers automatically. It includes a variety of new features, from recommending authors in the references of submitted papers as reviewers to finding similar papers by searching the citation index and suggesting reviewer candidates extensively. This study investigated how the online submission system provides functions such as recommendation of reviewers. As a result of examining major online submission systems, ScholarOne and Editorial Manager were recommending reviewer candidates by commercial citation index and review history platform. On the other hand, JAMS, a domestic online submission system, did not have any advanced functions such as recommendation of candidates for reviewers. Sooner or later, in Korea, it seems that more efforts should be made to improve the function of online submission system, such as recommending suitable reviewers for papers.

학술지 투고논문 심사에 적합한 심사위원을 찾아내고 선정하는 업무는 간단하지 않다. 이에 해외의 주요 학술지 온라인 투고관리시스템에서는 심사위원을 추천하는 기능을 개발하여 운영 중이다. 투고논문의 참고문헌에 있는 저자를 심사위원 후보로 추천하는 것부터 인용색인을 탐색해 광범위하게 제안하는 것까지 이들이 제공하는 기능은 다양하다. 이 연구는 온라인 투고관리시스템에서 심사위원 후보 추천과 관련하여 어떤 기능을 제공하고 있는지를 조사하였다. 조사결과 해외 주요 온라인 투고관리시스템인 ScholarOne Manuscripts, Editorial Manager 등은 상용 인용색인과 심사이력 플랫폼을 연동해 심사위원 후보를 추천하고 있었다. 반면에 국내 주요 투고관리시스템인 JAMS에는 심사위원 후보 추천 등과 같은 심화 기능이 없었다. 향후 국내에서도 투고논문의 적합 심사위원을 추천하고 심사이력을 활용하는 기능을 개발하는 등 투고관리시스템 기능 향상에 더욱 힘써야 할 것으로 보인다.

Keywords

References

  1. Clarivate Korea (2019). ScholarOne and Publons. Available: https://youtu.be/83-feWjnxkc
  2. Hwang, Seogwon, Yang, SeungWoo, Ahn, Doo Hyun, Lee, Sejun, Shin, Eunjung, Yang, Hyeonchae, Han, Ungkyu, Kang, Hee Jong, Lee, Daeun, Jin, Seongman, Song, ChoongHan, & Kim, Haedo (2020). Innovation Strategy for the Data-Based R&D Management System of the Korean Government. Science and Technology Policy Institute.
  3. Kang, Changwan & Choi, SeungBae (2020). Automatic recommender algorithm of reviewers using machine learning. Journal of The Korean Data Analysis Society, 22(6), 2405-2412. https://doi.org/10.37727/jkdas.2020.22.6.2405
  4. Kim, Ji-Young, Kim, Hyun Soo, & Shim, Wonsik (2020). A study on open peer review perception of Korean authors in a mega OA journal. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 37(4), 131-150.
  5. National Research Foundation of Korea (2022). User Manual for Journal Article & Management System 2.0. Available: https://portal.jams.or.kr/
  6. Aries Systems Corporation (2021). Aries Systems and Clarivate Partner to Connect Web of Science Reviewer Locator with Editorial Manager. Available: https://www.ariessys.com/news-and-events/press-releases/aries-systems-and-clarivatepartner-to-connect-web-of-science-reviewer-locator-with-editorial-manager/
  7. Balster, R. L. (2017). Reviewing Manuscripts for Scientific Journals. In Babor, T F, Stenius, K, Pates, R, Miovsky, M, O'Reilly, J., & Candon, P. eds. Publishing Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Ubiquity Press, 245-263. Available: https://doi.org/10.5334/bbd.m. License: CC-BY 4.0.
  8. Baveye, P. C. (2021). Objectivity of the peer-review process: enduring myth, reality, and possible remedies. Learned Publishing, 34(4), 696-700. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1414
  9. Cann, D. P. & Blanford, C. F. (2018). The power of suggestion: should authors nominate peer reviewers? Journal of Materials Science, 53(7), 4705-4708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-017-1931-7
  10. da Silva, J. A. T. & Al-Khatib, A. (2021). How do clarivate analytics and publons propose to fortify peer review in the COVID-19 era? Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 16(2), 139-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2021.01.008
  11. Gaston, T. & Smart, P. (2018). What influences the regional diversity of reviewers: a study of medical and agricultural/biological sciences journals. Learned Publishing, 31(3), 189-197. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1155
  12. Haffar, S., Bazerbachi, F., & Murad, M. H. (2019). Peer review bias: a critical review. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 94(4), 670-676.
  13. Haider, S. M. & Kashif, M. (2019). Open journal system. Annals of Abbasi Shaheed Hospital and Karachi Medical & Dental College, 24(2), 59-61. https://doi.org/10.58397/ashkmdc.v24i2.30
  14. Horbach, S. P. & Halffman, W. (2018). The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Research Integrity Peer Review, 3(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5
  15. Johnson, R., Watkinson, A., & Mabe, M. (2018). The STM Report: An Overview of Scientific and Scholarly Publishing (5th ed.). Hague: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers.
  16. Jorm, A. F. (2022). Publons as a source of high volume, poorly targeted reviewer requests: the need for better standards of practice by publishers. Learned Publishing, 35(2), 285-287. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1420
  17. Kim, S., Choi, H., Kim, N., Chung, E., & Lee, J. Y. (2018). Comparative analysis of manuscript management systems for scholarly publishing. Science Editing, 5(2), 124-134. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.137
  18. Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P., & Trinquart, L. (2016). The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: strong imbalance in the collective enterprise. PloS one, 11(11), e0166387.
  19. Liang, Y. (2018). Should authors suggest reviewers? a comparative study of the performance of author-suggested and editor-selected reviewers at a biological journal. Learned Publishing, 31(3), 216-221. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1166
  20. Mavrogenis, A. F., Quaile, A., & Scarlat, M. M. (2020). The good, the bad and the rude peer-review. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 44, 413-415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04504-1
  21. McGlinchey, N., Hunter, T., Bromley, J., Fisher, R., Debiec-Waszak, A., & Gaston, T. (2019). Do journal administrators solve the reviewer assignment problem as well as editors? consideration of reviewer rigour and timeliness. Learned Publishing, 32(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1225
  22. Merrill, E. & Cox, A. (2014). Reviewer overload and what can we do about it. Journal of Wildlife Management, 78(6), 961-962. https:// doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.763
  23. Ortega, J. L. (2018). Exploratory analysis of publons metrics and their relationship with bibliometric and altmetric impact. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 71(1), 124-136. https://doi.org/10.1108/ajim-06-2018-0153
  24. PRC (2016). PRC Peer Review Survey 2015. Available: https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/655756/PRC-peer-review-survey-report-Final-2016-05-19.pdf
  25. Publons and Clarivate Analytics (2019). Publons, Available: https://clarivate.co.kr/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Publons-Korean-2019-onsolidated-Factsheet.pdf
  26. Rogers, A. & Augenstein, I. (2020). What can we do to improve peer review in NLP?. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03863.
  27. Sage (2014). SAGE Publications Busts "peer review and citation ring," 60 papers retracted. Available: https://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/08/sage-publications-busts-peer-review-and-citation-ring-60-papers-retracted/
  28. Severin, A. & Chataway, J. (2021). Purposes of peer review: a qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions. Learned Publishing, 34(2), 144-155. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1336
  29. Shah, N. B. (2022). Challenges, experiments, and computational solutions in peer review. Communications of the ACM, 65(6), 76-87. https://doi.org/10.1145/3528086
  30. Springer (2015). 64 More Papers Retracted for Fake Reviews, This Time from Springer Journals. Available: https://retractionwatch.com/2015/08/17/64-more-papers-retracted-for-fake-reviews-this-time-from-springer-journals/
  31. Springer Nature (2022). Reviewer Finder Available: https://www.springernature.com/gp/editors/resources-tools/reviewer-finder
  32. Taylor & Francis Editor Resources (2022). How to Find Peer Reviewers: an Editor's Guide. Available: https://editorresources.taylorandfrancis.com/managing-peer-review-process/how-to-find-peer-reviewers-an-editors-guide/