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

被引:0
作者
Jue Ni
Zhenyue Zhao
Yupo Shao
Shuo Liu
Wanlin Li
Yaoze Zhuang
Junmo Qu
Yu Cao
Nayuan Lian
Jiang Li
机构
[1] Nanjing University,School of Information Management
[2] Nanjing University,Business School
[3] Yangzhou University,College of Mathematical Science
[4] Nanjing University,School of Geography and Ocean Science
来源
Scientometrics | 2021年 / 126卷
关键词
Open peer review; Review comments; Regression analysis; Citations; Rounds of review;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
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:11
相关论文
共 57 条
[1]  
Besançon L(2020)Open up: A survey on open and non-anonymised peer reviewing Research Integrity and Peer Review 5 8-80
[2]  
Bornmann L(2008)What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior Journal of Documentation 64 45-118
[3]  
Daniel HD(2010)A reliability-generalisation study of journal peer reviews: a multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants PLoS ONE 5 e14331-36
[4]  
Bornmann L(2010)From black box to white box at open access journals: Predictive validity of manuscript reviewing and editorial decisions at atmospheric chemistry and physics Research Evaluation 19 105-326
[5]  
Mutz R(1986)Evidence of complex citer motivations Journal of the Association for Information Science 37 34-2765
[6]  
Daniel HD(2021)The Sci-Hub effect on papers’ citations Scientometrics 127 075002-280
[7]  
Bornmann L(2019)Making open science work for science and society Environmental Health Perspectives 44 311-687
[8]  
Marx W(2013)Defining and characterising open peer review: A review of the literature Journal of Scholarly Publishing 287 2762-128
[9]  
Schier H(2002)Making reviewers visible: Openness, accountability, and credit JAMA 8 267-27
[10]  
Thor A(2011)Should biomedical publishing be "opened up"? toward a values-based peer-review process Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 166 667-365