Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on atmospheric chemistry and physics. PLoS ONE,5(10), e13345. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013345.
Earnshaw, J. J., Farndon, J. R., Guillou, P. J., Johnson, C. D., Murie, J. A., & Murray, G. D. (2000). A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England,82(4), 133–135.
Fox, W. C., Burns, C. S., Anna, D. M., & Mayer, A. J. (2016). Author-suggested reviewers: Gender differences and influences on the peer review process at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology,31(1), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12665.
Jefferson, T., Alderson, P., Walger, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review. JAMA,287(21), 1–4.
Jelicic, M., & Merckelbach, H. (2002). Peer-review: Let’s imitate the lawyers! Cortex,38(3), 406–407.
Kowalczuk, M. K., Dudbridge, F., Nanda, S., Harriman, S. L., Patel, J., & Moylan, E. C. (2015). Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707.
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.
Mahoney, M. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research,1(2), 161–175.
Moore, L. M., Neilson, E. G., & Siegel, V. (2011). Effect of recommendations from reviewers suggested or excluded by authors. Journal of American Society of Nephrology,22(9), 1598–1602. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2011070643.
Murray, D., Siler, K., Lariviere, V., Chan, W. M., Collings, A., Raymond, J., et al. (2018). Gender and international diversity improves equity in peer review. PLoS Biology. https://doi.org/10.1101/400515. (preprint).
Peters, D., & Ceci, S. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of submitted articles, submitted again. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences,5(2), 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011183.
Rivara, P. F., Cummings, P., Ringold, S., Bergman, A. B., Joffe, A., & Christakis, D. A. (2007). A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors. The Journal of Pediatrics,151(2), 202–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.02.008.
Schroter, S., Tite, L., Hutchings, A., & Black, N. (2006). Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA,295(3), 314–317. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.3.314.
Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process and the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine,99(4), 178–182. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178.
Spier, R. (2002). The effects of the peer review process. Trends in Biotechnology,20(8), 357–358.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Al-Khatib, A. (2017). Should authors be requested to suggest peer reviewers? Science and Engineering Ethics,24(1), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9842-6.
UN Country Classification. (2014). http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wesp/wesp_current/2014wesp_country_classification.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2018.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Jovan Shopovski is the Managing Editor of the European Scientific Journal (ESJ), and Monika Bolek is a part of the Editorial Board of the same journal.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Symbols of Variables
Appendix: Symbols of Variables
- AC:
-
Countries of origins of authors
- PL:
-
Paper language
- DE:
-
Decisions of editor-suggested reviewers
- DA:
-
Author-suggested reviewers (external)
- CE:
-
Countries of origins of editor-suggested reviewers
- CA:
-
Countries of origins of author-suggested reviewers
- GE:
-
Gender of editor-suggested reviewers
- GA:
-
Gender of author-suggested reviewers
- TE:
-
Time of editor-suggested reviewers
- TA:
-
Time of author-suggested reviewers
- TIE:
-
Editor-suggested reviewer title assessment
- AE:
-
Editor-suggested reviewer abstract assessment
- GRE:
-
Editor-suggested reviewer grammar assessment
- ME:
-
Editor-suggested reviewer methods assessment
- BE:
-
Editor-suggested reviewer body of a paper assessment
- COE:
-
Editor-suggested reviewer conclusions assessment
- RE:
-
Editor-suggested reviewer references assessment
- TIA:
-
Author-suggested reviewer title assessment
- AA:
-
Author-suggested reviewer abstract assessment
- GRA:
-
Author-suggested reviewer grammar assessment
- MA:
-
Author-suggested reviewer methods assessment
- BA:
-
Author-suggested reviewer body of a paper assessment
- COA:
-
Author-suggested reviewer conclusions assessment
- RA:
-
Author-suggested reviewer references assessment
- ACTA:
-
Time of review of author-suggested reviewer in relation to country of author
- CATA:
-
Time of review of author-suggested reviewer in relation to country of reviewer
- GATA:
-
Time of review of author-suggested reviewer in relation to gender of reviewer
- ACTE:
-
Time of review of editor-suggested reviewer in relation to country of author
- CETE:
-
Time of review of editor-suggested reviewer in relation to country of reviewer
- GETE:
-
Time of review of editor-suggested reviewer in relation to gender of reviewer
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shopovski, J., Bolek, C. & Bolek, M. Characteristics of Peer Review Reports: Editor-Suggested Versus Author-Suggested Reviewers. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 709–726 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00118-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00118-y