A validation study on the factors affecting the practice modes of open peer review

Ying He · Kun Tian · Xiaoran Xu

15 citations0/0 files storedScientometrics

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 Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

Abstract In this paper we conduct a validation study on the factors affecting the practice modes of open peer review. Taking the Open Access Journals (OAJ) in Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) as the research objects, we crawled the internet to gather their relevant data. Based on the method of categorical variable assignment, a quantitative analysis was performed on the qualitative factors that affect the practice modes of open peer review. A multi-dimensional analysis chart is used to illustrate the relationships between the factors. Optimal scale regression modeling and discriminant analysis were also employed to reveal the degrees of influences by the factors. The public categories of “type of open peer review” and “reviewer identity” are closely related to each other. “Reviewer identity” has evident positive influence on “type of open peer review”, and the degree of influence is the highest. Therefore, “reviewer identity” is the primary and most crucial factor affecting open peer review practice modes. “Review report” and “order of review report and publication” are the secondary ones. Whether or not the identities of review experts are open has become the most important factor affecting the practice modes of open peer review. Transparent peer review is currently the most effective practice mode of open peer review. Technologies like block chain can be used to address the psychological uneasiness for the peer review experts who are concerned with privacy issues. The fact that most OAJs use “pre-publication review” shows that open peer review still plays the traditional role of “academic goalkeeper”. Publication of peer review reports actually helps peer review experts augment their reputation, which in turn practically promotes the development of open peer review.

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 — 15 citations exist upstream.

References

1982Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again 1957The Science of Research Management 2017What is open peer review? A systematic review 2017A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review 2019The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals 2000Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial 2017Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers 2013Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of the Literature

Cited by

2024Emerging plagiarism in peer-review evaluation reports: a tip of the iceberg?2024Are the confidence scores of reviewers consistent with the review content? Evidence from top conference proceedings in AI

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.