Determinants of peer review engagement and quality in scientific journals: insights for academic research and the sustainability of the peer-review system

被引:3
作者
Horta, Hugo [1 ]
Santos, Joao M. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hong Kong, Fac Educ, Social Contexts & Pol Educ, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[2] Iscte Inst Univ Lisboa, Ctr Invest & Estudos Sociol Cies Iscte, Lisbon, Portugal
关键词
Peer review-publication nexus; strategic research agendas; academic research; academic inbreeding; peer review; EARLY CAREER RESEARCHERS; ATTITUDES;
D O I
10.1080/03075079.2023.2270488
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Research productivity is a common topic in the literature, but peer reviewing for journals has received less attention, although it is a key activity of academic research. We help to fill this knowledge gap by assessing the determinants of peer review engagement and quality in scientific journals. We do so by analysing the combined information from a survey of academics working in different parts of the world and various fields of science, along with their publication and peer review information gathered from Scopus and Publons/Web of Science. We find that age, gender, and some dimensions of academics' strategic research agendas are important predictors of peer review engagement. We also find that academic inbreeding along the educational path has a negative association with the quality of peer-review activities. However, we find no statistically significant results concerning academic inbreeding related to the professional trajectory and peer review engagement and quality. Equally importantly, our results suggest that although the activities of publishing and peer reviewing are closely associated, peer review tends to be ancillary to publishing, rather than the other way around. Furthermore, the greater the perceived availability of resources, including research funding throughout an academic's career, the greater the focus is on publishing and the less the focus is on peer reviewing. These findings are discussed in relation to the current valuation of publication versus peer reviewing in terms of scientific and academic career recognition.
引用
收藏
页码:1553 / 1568
页数:16
相关论文
共 61 条
[1]   Made to measure: early career academics in the Canadian university workplace [J].
Acker, Sandra ;
Webber, Michelle .
HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, 2017, 36 (03) :541-554
[2]   A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers' time spent on peer review [J].
Aczel, Balazs ;
Szaszi, Barnabas ;
Holcombe, Alex O. .
RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND PEER REVIEW, 2021, 6 (01)
[3]  
Ahmed H.S., 2013, European Science Editing, V39, P8
[4]  
Allen KA, 2022, J UNIV TEACH LEARN P, V19
[5]   Scientific Peer Review [J].
Bornmann, Lutz .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2011, 45 :199-245
[6]   Reviewer Fatigue? Why Scholars Decline to Review their Peers' Work [J].
Breuning, Marijke ;
Backstrom, Jeremy ;
Brannon, Jeremy ;
Gross, Benjamin Isaak ;
Widmeier, Michael .
PS-POLITICAL SCIENCE & POLITICS, 2015, 48 (04) :595-600
[7]   Attitudes of Referees in a Multidisciplinary Journal: An Empirical Analysis [J].
Casnici, Niccolo ;
Grimaldo, Francisco ;
Gilbert, Nigel ;
Squazzoni, Flaminio .
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2017, 68 (07) :1763-1771
[8]   Reducing publication delay to improve the efficiency and impact of conservation science [J].
Christie, Alec P. ;
White, Thomas B. ;
Martin, Philip ;
Petrovan, Silviu O. ;
Bladon, Andrew J. ;
Bowkett, Andrew E. ;
Littlewood, Nick A. ;
Mupepele, Anne-Christine ;
Rocha, Ricardo ;
Sainsbury, Katherine A. ;
Smith, Rebecca K. ;
Taylor, Nigel G. ;
Sutherland, William J. .
PEERJ, 2021, 9
[9]  
CRANE D, 1967, AM SOCIOL, V2, P195
[10]   Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal [J].
Fox, Charles W. ;
Burns, C. Sean ;
Meyer, Jennifer A. .
FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY, 2016, 30 (01) :140-153