The influence of opening up peer review on the citations of journal articles

被引:17
作者
Ni, Jue [1 ]
Zhao, Zhenyue [1 ]
Shao, Yupo [1 ]
Liu, Shuo [1 ]
Li, Wanlin [1 ]
Zhuang, Yaoze [2 ]
Qu, Junmo [3 ]
Cao, Yu [2 ]
Lian, Nayuan [4 ]
Li, Jiang [1 ]
机构
[1] Nanjing Univ, Sch Informat Management, Nanjing, Peoples R China
[2] Nanjing Univ, Business Sch, Nanjing, Peoples R China
[3] Yangzhou Univ, Coll Math Sci, Yangzhou, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
[4] Nanjing Univ, Sch Geog & Ocean Sci, Nanjing, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Open peer review; Review comments; Regression analysis; Citations; Rounds of review;
D O I
10.1007/s11192-021-04182-9
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
This paper studied whether opening up review reports benefits science in terms of citations by taking Nature Communications as an example. To address this question, we collected the bibliographic records of 7614 papers published by Nature Communications in 2016 and 2017 from the Web of Science database and the disclosed reviewers' comments and authors' responses of a subset of 2293 papers. Using a linear regression model, we found no evidence of a citation advantage for the articles which disclosed their peer review documents. We concluded that opening peer review reports did not benefit papers in Nature Communications in terms of citations. We further examined whether the length of the comments and the number of rounds of the review process are associated with the papers' citations. We found no evidence that the number of rounds is associated with the citations of the articles in Nature Communications. However, longer comments are associated with fewer citations, although the effect is weak.
引用
收藏
页码:9393 / 9404
页数:12
相关论文
共 30 条
  • [1] Adie E, 2014, FIGSHARE
  • [2] Besancon L, 2020, OPEN SCI SAVES LIVES, DOI [10.1101/2020.08.13.249847v2, DOI 10.1101/2020.08.13.249847V2]
  • [3] Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing
    Besancon, Lonni
    Ronnberg, Niklas
    Lowgren, Jonas
    Tennant, Jonathan P.
    Cooper, Matthew
    [J]. RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND PEER REVIEW, 2020, 5 (01)
  • [4] What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior
    Bornmann, Luti
    Daniel, Hans-Dieter
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, 2008, 64 (01) : 45 - 80
  • [5] A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants
    Bornmann, Lutz
    Mutz, Ruediger
    Daniel, Hans-Dieter
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2010, 5 (12):
  • [6] From black box to white box at open access journals: predictive validity of manuscript reviewing and editorial decisions at Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
    Bornmann, Lutz
    Marx, Werner
    Schier, Hermann
    Thor, Andreas
    Daniel, Hans-Dieter
    [J]. RESEARCH EVALUATION, 2010, 19 (02) : 105 - 118
  • [7] BROOKS TA, 1986, J AM SOC INFORM SCI, V37, P34
  • [8] The Sci-Hub effect on papers' citations
    Correa, Juan C.
    Laverde-Rojas, Henry
    Tejada, Julian
    Marmolejo-Ramos, Fernando
    [J]. SCIENTOMETRICS, 2022, 127 (01) : 99 - 126
  • [9] Making Open Science Work for Science and Society
    Elliott, Kevin C.
    Resnik, David K.
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, 2019, 127 (07)
  • [10] Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of the Literature
    Ford, Emily
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING, 2013, 44 (04) : 311 - 326