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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |