Cargando…

Characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers

BACKGROUND: The 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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rice, Danielle B., Pham, Ba’, Presseau, Justin, Tricco, Andrea C., Moher, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8862198/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35189977
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-022-00121-1
_version_ 1784655010960769024
author Rice, Danielle B.
Pham, Ba’
Presseau, Justin
Tricco, Andrea C.
Moher, David
author_facet Rice, Danielle B.
Pham, Ba’
Presseau, Justin
Tricco, Andrea C.
Moher, David
author_sort Rice, Danielle B.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The 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. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional study design was used to compare characteristics between (1) individuals completing at least 100 peer reviews (‘mega peer reviewers’) from January 2018 to December 2018 as and (2) 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 (e.g., number of publications, number of citations, word count of peer review) of mega peer reviewers to the control group of reviewers. RESULTS: A 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 (92%) as compared to the control reviewers (70% male). 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 (all p < .001). We found no statistically significant differences in the number of words between the groups (p > .428). CONCLUSIONS: Mega 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8862198
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88621982022-02-23 Characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers Rice, Danielle B. Pham, Ba’ Presseau, Justin Tricco, Andrea C. Moher, David Res Integr Peer Rev Research BACKGROUND: The 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. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional study design was used to compare characteristics between (1) individuals completing at least 100 peer reviews (‘mega peer reviewers’) from January 2018 to December 2018 as and (2) 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 (e.g., number of publications, number of citations, word count of peer review) of mega peer reviewers to the control group of reviewers. RESULTS: A 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 (92%) as compared to the control reviewers (70% male). 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 (all p < .001). We found no statistically significant differences in the number of words between the groups (p > .428). CONCLUSIONS: Mega 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. BioMed Central 2022-02-21 /pmc/articles/PMC8862198/ /pubmed/35189977 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-022-00121-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Rice, Danielle B.
Pham, Ba’
Presseau, Justin
Tricco, Andrea C.
Moher, David
Characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers
title Characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers
title_full Characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers
title_fullStr Characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers
title_full_unstemmed Characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers
title_short Characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers
title_sort characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8862198/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35189977
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-022-00121-1
work_keys_str_mv AT ricedanielleb characteristicsofmegapeerreviewers
AT phamba characteristicsofmegapeerreviewers
AT presseaujustin characteristicsofmegapeerreviewers
AT triccoandreac characteristicsofmegapeerreviewers
AT moherdavid characteristicsofmegapeerreviewers