Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14699/kbiblia.2022.33.1.005

A Study on the Peer Review Activity of Domestic Researchers in International Journals: Focused on Publons  

Cho, Jane (인천대학교 문헌정보학과)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for library and Information Science / v.33, no.1, 2022 , pp. 5-24 More about this Journal
Abstract
As a new academic publication model is attempted to improve the transparency, efficiency, and speed of scientific knowledge production and distribution, the open peer review platform for verification and openness of peer review history is also activated. Publons is a global platform for tracking, validating, disclosing, and recognizing the peer-reviewed histories of more than 3 million researchers worldwide. This study analyzed the review activities of 579 researchers from domestic universities who are actively reviewing international journals through Publons. As a result of the analysis, first, researchers from domestic universities who actively review international academic journals were found to be in the fields of medicine and electrical and electronics, and in most fields, assistant professors or higher with high WOS indexed research papers are participating. Second, there was a long-tail phenomenon in which a small number of reviewers with extremely high number of review papers existed in all academic fields, and there was no significant difference in the number of review papers and review report length depending on the nationality, academic status, and age of the reviewers. Lastly, although there was a weak correlation between the amount of papers reviewed by reviewers and the number of published papers, it was found that researchers with an extremely large number of reviews do not necessarily produce as many research papers.
Keywords
Peer review; Peer review open platform; Publons; OPR(Open peer review); Open Science; International academic journal;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Wilkinson, J. & Down, P. (2018). Publons: releasing the untapped power of peer review for universities. Insights, 31, 20. http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.407   DOI
2 Zong, Q., Fan, L., Xie, Y., & Huang, J. (2020). The relationship of polarity of post-publication peer review to citation count: evidence from publons. Online Information Review, 44(3), 583-602. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-01-2019-0027   DOI
3 Black, N., Van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Smith, R., & Evans, S. (1998). What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 231-233.   DOI
4 Evans, A. T., McNutt, R. A., Fletcher, S. W., & Fletcher, R. H. (1993). The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 8(8), 422-428.   DOI
5 Yankauer, A. (1990). Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review?. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1338-1340.   DOI
6 Sato, S. (2016). Peer review problems and countermeasures. Information Science and Technology, 66(3), 115-121.
7 Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H. D. (2008). Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review: a citation analysis of communications that were accepted by angewandte chemie international edition, or rejected but published elsewhere. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1841-1852.   DOI
8 Clarivate Analytics (2020). Publons Reviewer Connect - ScholarOne. Available: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/576fcda2e4fcb5ab5152b4d8/t/5e7dceb25ae8b93895717126/1585303221283/Reviewer+Connect+in+ScholarOne+QRG_Final.pdf
9 cOAlition S (2019). Guidance on the Implementation of Plan S. Available: https://www.coalition-s.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/271118_cOAlitionS_Guidanc e_annotated.pdf
10 Clarivate (2018, February 26). It's not the size that matters. Available: https://clarivate.com/blog/its-not-the-size-that-matters/
11 Falkenberg, L. J. & Soranno, P. A. (2018). Reviewing reviews: an evaluation of peer reviews of journal article submissions, Limnology and Oceanography Bulletin, 27(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/lob.10217   DOI
12 Glonti, K., Boutron, I., Moher, D., & Hren, D. (2019). Journal editors' perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study, BMJ Open, 9(11), e033421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033421   DOI
13 Ortega, J. L. (2017). Are peer-review activities related to reviewer bibliometric performance? a scientometric analysis of publons. Scientometrics, 112, 947-962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2399-6   DOI
14 Wiechert, K., Chapman, J. R., & Wang, J. C. (2018). Recognizing our experts: global spine journal partners with publons to establish reviewers' platform. Global Spine Journal, 8(3), 217. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568218773367   DOI
15 Dunne, M. (2019). Computer Generated Papers as a New Challenge to Peer Review. Master of Science in Technical Communication, Montana Tech. Available: https://digitalcommons.mtech.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1205&context=grad_rsch
16 Ortega, J. L. (2019). 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   DOI
17 Gasparyan, A. Y. & Kitas, G. D. (2012). Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals, Croatian Medical Journal, 53(4), 386-389.   DOI
18 Kliewer, M. A., Freed, K. S., DeLong, D. M., Pickhardt, P. J., & Provenzale, J. M. (2005). Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American journal of roentgenology. American Journal of Roentgenology, 184(6), 1731-1735.   DOI
19 Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2020). Are negative reviews, predatory reviewers or failed peer review rewarded at Publons?. International Orthopaedics (SICOT), 44, 2193-2194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04587-w   DOI
20 Ule, J. (2020). Open access, open data and peer review. Genome Biol, 21, 86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-020-02005-3   DOI
21 Wolfram, D., Wang, P., Hembree, A., & Park, H. (2020). Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science. Scientometrics, 125, 1033-1051. http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.407   DOI
22 Thomas, P. R. & Watkins, D. S. (1998). Institutional research rankings via bibliometric analysis and direct peer review: a comparative case study with policy implications. Scientometrics, 41(3), 335-355.   DOI
23 Goldstein, S. (2019). Publons peer evaluation metrics are not reliable measures of quality or impact. Evidence Based Library And Information Practice, 14(3), 153-155. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29579   DOI
24 Patterson, M. & Harris, S. (2009). The relationship between reviewers' quality-scores and number of citations for papers published in the journal Physics in Medicine and Biology from 2003-2005. Scientometrics, 80(2), 343-349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2064-1   DOI
25 Pautasso, M. & Schafer, H. (2009). Peer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals. Scientometrics, 84(2), 307-315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0105-z   DOI
26 Reilly, L. (2021). What are Scored Publications?. Publons. Availabe: https://publons.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/12000081238-what-are-scoredpublications
27 Ross-Hellauer, T., Deppe, A., & Schmidt, B. (2017). Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS ONE 12(12), e0189311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311   DOI
28 Schriger, D. L., Kadera, S. P., & Von Elm, E. (2016). Are reviewers' scores influenced by citations to their own work? an analysis of submitted manuscripts and peer reviewer reports. Annuals of Emergency Medicine, 67(3), 401-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.09.003   DOI
29 Swiontkowski, M. (2019). Publons: the next step in reviewer recognition. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 101(13), 1137. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.19.00481   DOI
30 Sato, S. (2014). New issues concerning peer review. Current Awareness, 321. https://current.ndl.go.jp/ca1829