Linguistic and semantic characteristics of articles and peer review reports in Social Sciences and Medical and Health Sciences: analysis of articles published in Open Research Central

We aimed to examine the differences in articles, peer review and editorial processes in Medical and Health Sciences vs. Social Sciences. Our data source was Open Research Central (ORC) portal, which hosts several journal platforms for post-publication peer review, allowing the analysis of articles from their submission, regardless of the publishing outcome. The study sample included 51 research articles that had Social Sciences tag only and 361 research articles with Medical and Health Sciences tag only. Levenshtein distance analysis showed that text changes over article versions in social science papers were statistically significant in the Introduction section. Articles from Social Sciences had longer Introduction and Conclusion sections and higher percentage of articles with merged Discussion and Conclusion sections. Articles from Medical and Health Sciences followed the Introduction-Methods-Results-Discussion (IMRaD) structure more frequently and contained fewer declarations and non IMRaD sections, but more figures. Social Sciences articles had higher Word Count, higher Clout, and less positive Tone. Linguistic analysis revealed a more positive Tone for peer review reports for articles in Social Sciences and higher Achievement and Research variables. Peer review reports were significantly longer for articles in Social Sciences but the two disciplines did not differ in the characteristics of the peer review process at all stages between the submitted and published version. This may be due to the fact that they were published on the same publication platform, which uses uniform policies and procedures for both types of articles.