Abstract
BackgroundThe 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.MethodsA descriptive cross-sectional study design was used to compare characteristics between individuals completing at least 100 peer reviews from January 2018 to December 2018 as and 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 of mega peer reviewers to the control group of reviewers.ResultsA 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 as compared to the control reviewers. 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.ConclusionsMega 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.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1186/s41073-022-00121-1
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 72,564
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Peer Review Process in Asia.Sakir Ahmed & Benzeeta Pinto - 2021 - Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics 1 (2):136-141.
Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction.Arthur E. Stamps Iii - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):3-10.
Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction.Arthur E. Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):3-10.
A Code of Conduct for Peer Reviewers and Editors.Steven James Bartlett - 2019 - Willamette University Faculty Research Website.
Improving the Peer Review of Narrative Literature Reviews.Jennifer A. Byrne - 2016 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 1 (1).
The Problem of Humiliation in Peer Review.Debra R. Comer & Michael Schwartz - 2014 - Ethics and Education 9 (2):141-156.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2022-02-22

Total views
1 ( #1,558,356 of 2,533,568 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #390,861 of 2,533,568 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes