Cargando…

Author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts much more favorably: A cross-sectional analysis of the neuroscience section of PLOS ONE

Peer review is an important part of science, aimed at providing expert and objective assessment of a manuscript. Because of many factors, including time constraints, unique expertise needs, and deference, many journals ask authors to suggest peer reviewers for their own manuscript. Previous research...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Acuna, Daniel E., Teplitskiy, Misha, Evans, James A., Kording, Konrad
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9744301/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36508452
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273994
_version_ 1784848893646733312
author Acuna, Daniel E.
Teplitskiy, Misha
Evans, James A.
Kording, Konrad
author_facet Acuna, Daniel E.
Teplitskiy, Misha
Evans, James A.
Kording, Konrad
author_sort Acuna, Daniel E.
collection PubMed
description Peer review is an important part of science, aimed at providing expert and objective assessment of a manuscript. Because of many factors, including time constraints, unique expertise needs, and deference, many journals ask authors to suggest peer reviewers for their own manuscript. Previous researchers have found differing effects about this practice that might be inconclusive due to sample sizes. In this article, we analyze the association between author-suggested reviewers and review invitation, review scores, acceptance rates, and subjective review quality using a large dataset of close to 8K manuscripts from 46K authors and 21K reviewers from the journal PLOS ONE’s Neuroscience section. We found that all-author-suggested review panels increase the chances of acceptance by 20 percent points vs all-editor-suggested panels while agreeing to review less often. While PLOS ONE has since ended the practice of asking for suggested reviewers, many others still use them and perhaps should consider the results presented here.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9744301
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97443012022-12-13 Author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts much more favorably: A cross-sectional analysis of the neuroscience section of PLOS ONE Acuna, Daniel E. Teplitskiy, Misha Evans, James A. Kording, Konrad PLoS One Research Article Peer review is an important part of science, aimed at providing expert and objective assessment of a manuscript. Because of many factors, including time constraints, unique expertise needs, and deference, many journals ask authors to suggest peer reviewers for their own manuscript. Previous researchers have found differing effects about this practice that might be inconclusive due to sample sizes. In this article, we analyze the association between author-suggested reviewers and review invitation, review scores, acceptance rates, and subjective review quality using a large dataset of close to 8K manuscripts from 46K authors and 21K reviewers from the journal PLOS ONE’s Neuroscience section. We found that all-author-suggested review panels increase the chances of acceptance by 20 percent points vs all-editor-suggested panels while agreeing to review less often. While PLOS ONE has since ended the practice of asking for suggested reviewers, many others still use them and perhaps should consider the results presented here. Public Library of Science 2022-12-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9744301/ /pubmed/36508452 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273994 Text en © 2022 Acuna et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Acuna, Daniel E.
Teplitskiy, Misha
Evans, James A.
Kording, Konrad
Author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts much more favorably: A cross-sectional analysis of the neuroscience section of PLOS ONE
title Author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts much more favorably: A cross-sectional analysis of the neuroscience section of PLOS ONE
title_full Author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts much more favorably: A cross-sectional analysis of the neuroscience section of PLOS ONE
title_fullStr Author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts much more favorably: A cross-sectional analysis of the neuroscience section of PLOS ONE
title_full_unstemmed Author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts much more favorably: A cross-sectional analysis of the neuroscience section of PLOS ONE
title_short Author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts much more favorably: A cross-sectional analysis of the neuroscience section of PLOS ONE
title_sort author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts much more favorably: a cross-sectional analysis of the neuroscience section of plos one
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9744301/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36508452
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273994
work_keys_str_mv AT acunadaniele authorsuggestedreviewersratemanuscriptsmuchmorefavorablyacrosssectionalanalysisoftheneurosciencesectionofplosone
AT teplitskiymisha authorsuggestedreviewersratemanuscriptsmuchmorefavorablyacrosssectionalanalysisoftheneurosciencesectionofplosone
AT evansjamesa authorsuggestedreviewersratemanuscriptsmuchmorefavorablyacrosssectionalanalysisoftheneurosciencesectionofplosone
AT kordingkonrad authorsuggestedreviewersratemanuscriptsmuchmorefavorablyacrosssectionalanalysisoftheneurosciencesectionofplosone