Identifying the characteristics of excellent peer reviewers by using Publons

Zhihong Huang · Qianjin Zong

6 citations0/0 files storedOnline Information Review

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Publishing and Scholarly Communication scientometrics and bibliometrics research Psychology Research and Bibliometrics

Abstract

Purpose This study aimed to identify the characteristics of excellent peer reviewers by using Publons.com (an open and free online peer review website). Design/methodology/approach Reviewers of the clinical medicine field on Publons were selected as the sample ( n = 1,864). A logistic regression model was employed to examine the data. Findings The results revealed that reviewers' verified reviews, verified editor records, and whether they were the Publons mentors had significant and positive associations with excellent peer reviewers, while their research performance (including the number of articles indexed by Web of Science (WOS), citations, H-index and high-cited researcher), genders, words per review, number of current/past editorial boards, whether they had experiences of post-publication review on Publons and whether they were Publons academy graduates had no significant associations with excellent peer reviewers. Originality/value This study could help journals find excellent peer reviewers from free and open online platforms. Peer review The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-11-2021-0604 .

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

References

2019The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals 2004Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial 1998What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?2016Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis 1994Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language 1993The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews 2007The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality 2015Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.