European Scientific Institute, ESI, Ponta Delgada, Portugal.
Faculty of Management, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Apr;26(2):709-726. doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00118-y. Epub 2019 Jun 17.
Peer review is widely recognized as a mechanism for quality control of academic content. This research article aims at comparing the review reports and decisions of reviewers who are members of the editorial board of the European Scientific Journal (ESJ) with those reviewers suggested by the authors and who are not affiliated with the journal. 457 review reports on 378 papers submitted to the ESJ in the period of October-December 2017 were analysed. Statistical methods including OLS and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were applied based on the score approach toward the reviewers' assessments of the papers and their characteristics related to the country, gender, and time of revisions. Results show the difference between the decisions these two groups of reviewers made. Even though editor-suggested and author-suggested reviewers need equal time to review a paper, the former are less favourable towards the authors of the papers. It is also concluded that factors such as time and country of the reviewers influence their decisions. In this regard, the editors should avoid relying their decisions solely on review reports received from reviewers suggested by the authors. However, further research with larger sample sizes should be conducted.
同行评审被广泛认为是学术内容质量控制的一种机制。本研究旨在比较欧洲科学期刊(ESJ)编辑委员会成员的评审报告和决策,以及作者推荐但与期刊无关的评审的评审报告和决策。对 2017 年 10 月至 12 月提交给 ESJ 的 378 篇论文的 457 份评审报告进行了分析。基于对论文及其与国家、性别和修订时间相关特征的评估,应用了包括 OLS 和 Wilcoxon 秩和检验在内的统计方法。结果表明,这两组评审员做出的决策存在差异。尽管编辑推荐和作者推荐的评审员需要相同的时间来评审一篇论文,但前者对论文的作者不太有利。此外,还得出结论,评审员的时间和国家等因素会影响他们的决策。在这方面,编辑们不应仅仅依靠作者推荐的评审员提交的评审报告做出决定。然而,应该进行具有更大样本量的进一步研究。