Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14699/kbiblia.2022.33.4.139

Automated Reviewers Recommendation on Online Submission System in Journal Publishing  

Eun-Ja, Shin (세종대학교 미디어커뮤니케이션학과, 세종대학교 미디어 어낼리틱스 연구소 )
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for library and Information Science / v.33, no.4, 2022 , pp. 139-157 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
Journal; Online Submission System; Peer Review; Reviewer; Automatic Recommendation; Reviewer Locator; JAMS;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
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   DOI
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 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.   DOI
17 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.   DOI
18 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.   DOI
19 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.
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   DOI
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.   DOI
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   DOI
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.   DOI
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 Severin, A. & Chataway, J. (2021). Purposes of peer review: a qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions. Learned Publishing, 34(2), 144-155.   DOI
26 Publons and Clarivate Analytics (2019). Publons, Available: https://clarivate.co.kr/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Publons-Korean-2019-onsolidated-Factsheet.pdf
27 Rogers, A. & Augenstein, I. (2020). What can we do to improve peer review in NLP?. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03863.
28 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/
29 Shah, N. B. (2022). Challenges, experiments, and computational solutions in peer review. Communications of the ACM, 65(6), 76-87.   DOI
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/