Development and application of a comprehensive glossary for the identification of statistical and methodological concepts in peer review reports

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Ivan Buljan , Daniel Garcia-Costa , Francisco Grimaldo , Richard A. Klein , Marjan Bakker , Ana Marušić
{"title":"Development and application of a comprehensive glossary for the identification of statistical and methodological concepts in peer review reports","authors":"Ivan Buljan ,&nbsp;Daniel Garcia-Costa ,&nbsp;Francisco Grimaldo ,&nbsp;Richard A. Klein ,&nbsp;Marjan Bakker ,&nbsp;Ana Marušić","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2024.101555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The assessment of problems identified by peer researchers during peer review is difficult because the content of these reports is typically confidential. The current study sought to construct and apply a glossary for the identification of methodological and statistical concepts mentioned in peer review reports. Three assessors created a list of 1,036 different terms in 19 categories. The glossary was tested on the confidential PEERE database, a sample of 496,928 peer review reports from various scientific disciplines. The most frequently mentioned terms were related to data presentation (found in 40.3 % of the reports) and parametric descriptive statistics (33.3 %). Review reports suggesting a rejection were more likely to mention methodological issues, whereas statistical issues were raised more frequently in review reports recommending revisions. Across disciplines, methodological issues were more frequently mentioned in social sciences (64.1 %), while health and medical sciences were more predictive for the identification of statistical issues (40.1 %). Female reviewers identified more statistical issues compared to male reviewers. These results indicate that the glossary could be used as an additional tool for the assessment of the content of peer review reports and for understanding what help authors may need in writing research articles.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724000683","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The assessment of problems identified by peer researchers during peer review is difficult because the content of these reports is typically confidential. The current study sought to construct and apply a glossary for the identification of methodological and statistical concepts mentioned in peer review reports. Three assessors created a list of 1,036 different terms in 19 categories. The glossary was tested on the confidential PEERE database, a sample of 496,928 peer review reports from various scientific disciplines. The most frequently mentioned terms were related to data presentation (found in 40.3 % of the reports) and parametric descriptive statistics (33.3 %). Review reports suggesting a rejection were more likely to mention methodological issues, whereas statistical issues were raised more frequently in review reports recommending revisions. Across disciplines, methodological issues were more frequently mentioned in social sciences (64.1 %), while health and medical sciences were more predictive for the identification of statistical issues (40.1 %). Female reviewers identified more statistical issues compared to male reviewers. These results indicate that the glossary could be used as an additional tool for the assessment of the content of peer review reports and for understanding what help authors may need in writing research articles.

编制和应用综合词汇表,以确定同行评审报告中的统计和方法概念
由于同行评审报告的内容通常是保密的,因此很难对同行研究人员在同行评审过程中发现的问题进行评估。本研究试图构建并应用一个词汇表,用于识别同行评议报告中提到的方法学和统计学概念。三位评审员创建了一份包含 19 个类别的 1036 个不同术语的清单。该术语表在保密的 PEERE 数据库中进行了测试,该数据库包含来自不同科学学科的 496928 份同行评审报告样本。最常被提及的术语与数据展示(40.3% 的报告中出现)和参数描述性统计(33.3%)有关。建议驳回的评审报告更有可能提到方法学问题,而建议修改的评审报告则更经常提到统计问题。在各学科中,社会科学更经常提到方法问题(64.1%),而健康和医学科学更容易发现统计问题(40.1%)。与男性审稿人相比,女性审稿人发现的统计问题更多。这些结果表明,术语表可作为评估同行评审报告内容和了解作者在撰写研究文章时可能需要哪些帮助的额外工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信