“超级”同行评审者的特征。

Characteristics of 'mega' peer-reviewers.

作者信息

Rice Danielle B, Pham Ba', Presseau Justin, Tricco Andrea C, Moher David

机构信息

Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.

Department of Psychology, Faculty of Science, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

出版信息

Res Integr Peer Rev. 2022 Feb 21;7(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s41073-022-00121-1.

DOI:10.1186/s41073-022-00121-1

PMID:35189977

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8862198/

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The demand for peer reviewers is often perceived as disproportionate to the supply and availability of reviewers. Considering characteristics associated with peer review behaviour can allow for the development of solutions to manage the growing demand for peer reviewers. The objective of this research was to compare characteristics among two groups of reviewers registered in Publons.

METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional study design was used to compare characteristics between (1) individuals completing at least 100 peer reviews ('mega peer reviewers') from January 2018 to December 2018 as and (2) a control group of peer reviewers completing between 1 and 18 peer reviews over the same time period. Data was provided by Publons, which offers a repository of peer reviewer activities in addition to tracking peer reviewer publications and research metrics. Mann Whitney tests and chi-square tests were conducted comparing characteristics (e.g., number of publications, number of citations, word count of peer review) of mega peer reviewers to the control group of reviewers.

RESULTS

A total of 1596 peer reviewers had data provided by Publons. A total of 396 M peer reviewers and a random sample of 1200 control group reviewers were included. A greater proportion of mega peer reviews were male (92%) as compared to the control reviewers (70% male). Mega peer reviewers demonstrated a significantly greater average number of total publications, citations, receipt of Publons awards, and a higher average h index as compared to the control group of reviewers (all p < .001). We found no statistically significant differences in the number of words between the groups (p > .428).

CONCLUSIONS

Mega peer reviewers registered in the Publons database also had a higher number of publications and citations as compared to a control group of reviewers. Additional research that considers motivations associated with peer review behaviour should be conducted to help inform peer reviewing activity.

摘要

背景

人们常常认为同行评审员的需求与评审员的供应和可得性不成比例。考虑与同行评审行为相关的特征有助于开发解决方案，以应对日益增长的同行评审员需求。本研究的目的是比较在Publons注册的两组评审员的特征。

方法

采用描述性横断面研究设计，比较以下两组人员的特征：（1）2018年1月至2018年12月期间完成至少100次同行评审的个人（“超级同行评审员”），以及（2）同期完成1至18次同行评审的同行评审员对照组。数据由Publons提供，该平台除了跟踪同行评审员的出版物和研究指标外，还提供同行评审员活动的存储库。对超级同行评审员和评审员对照组的特征（如出版物数量、被引次数、同行评审字数）进行曼-惠特尼检验和卡方检验。

结果

共有1596名同行评审员的数据由Publons提供。共纳入396名超级同行评审员和1200名对照组评审员的随机样本。与对照组评审员（70%为男性）相比，超级同行评审员中男性比例更高（92%）。与对照组评审员相比，超级同行评审员的总出版物数量、被引次数、获得Publons奖项的数量以及平均h指数均显著更高（所有p<0.001）。我们发现两组之间的字数没有统计学上的显著差异（p>0.428）。