Revealing Reviewers’ Identities as Part of Open Peer Review and Analysis of the Review Reports

Q2 Social Sciences
Cezary Bolek, Dejan Marolov, Monika Bolek, Jovan Shopovski
{"title":"Revealing Reviewers’ Identities as Part of Open Peer Review and Analysis of the Review Reports","authors":"Cezary Bolek, Dejan Marolov, Monika Bolek, Jovan Shopovski","doi":"10.31235/osf.io/9pgm2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This research article is aimed at comparing review reports in which the identity of the reviewers is revealed to the authors of the papers with those where the reviewers decided to remain anonymous. The review reports are gathered as part of the peer review process of the European Scientific Journal (ESJ). This journal maintains a single-blind peer review procedure and optional open review. Reviewers are familiar with the names of the authors but not vice versa. When sending the review reports, the reviewers can opt to reveal their identity to the authors. 343 review reports from members of the ESJ editorial board, gathered within the period of May to July 2019, were analyzed. The data analysis was performed using Python programing language based on NumPy, Pandas, and Scipy packages.Half of the reviewers decided to choose the open option and reveal their names to the authors of the papers. The other half remained anonymous. The results show that female reviewers more often decide to remain anonymous than their male colleagues. However, there is no significant difference in the review reports on the basis of gender or country of institutional affiliation of the reviewers. Revealing identity did not make difference in reviewers’ point appraisal in the review reports. This difference was not significant. However, majority of the reviewers who recommended rejection in their review reports were not willing to reveal their identities. Even more, those reviewers who revealed their identity were more likely to recommend acceptance without revision or minor revision in their review reports.","PeriodicalId":39179,"journal":{"name":"LIBER Quarterly","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LIBER Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/9pgm2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This research article is aimed at comparing review reports in which the identity of the reviewers is revealed to the authors of the papers with those where the reviewers decided to remain anonymous. The review reports are gathered as part of the peer review process of the European Scientific Journal (ESJ). This journal maintains a single-blind peer review procedure and optional open review. Reviewers are familiar with the names of the authors but not vice versa. When sending the review reports, the reviewers can opt to reveal their identity to the authors. 343 review reports from members of the ESJ editorial board, gathered within the period of May to July 2019, were analyzed. The data analysis was performed using Python programing language based on NumPy, Pandas, and Scipy packages.Half of the reviewers decided to choose the open option and reveal their names to the authors of the papers. The other half remained anonymous. The results show that female reviewers more often decide to remain anonymous than their male colleagues. However, there is no significant difference in the review reports on the basis of gender or country of institutional affiliation of the reviewers. Revealing identity did not make difference in reviewers’ point appraisal in the review reports. This difference was not significant. However, majority of the reviewers who recommended rejection in their review reports were not willing to reveal their identities. Even more, those reviewers who revealed their identity were more likely to recommend acceptance without revision or minor revision in their review reports.
公开同行评议中审稿人身份的揭示及评议报告的分析
这篇研究文章的目的是比较那些审稿人的身份被透露给论文作者的审稿人和那些审稿人决定保持匿名的审稿人的报告。评审报告是作为《欧洲科学杂志》(ESJ)同行评审过程的一部分收集的。本刊保持单盲同行评议程序和选择性开放评议。审稿人熟悉作者的名字,而作者不熟悉审稿人的名字。当发送评审报告时,审稿人可以选择向作者透露他们的身份。分析了2019年5月至7月期间ESJ编委会成员的343份评审报告。数据分析使用Python编程语言,基于NumPy、Pandas和Scipy包。一半的审稿人决定选择公开的方式,并向论文的作者透露他们的名字。另一半则保持匿名。结果显示,女性审稿人比男性同事更倾向于选择匿名。然而,根据审稿人的性别或机构所属国家,审稿人的审查报告没有显著差异。在评审报告中,披露身份对评审者的点评价没有影响。这一差异并不显著。然而,大多数在评审报告中建议拒绝的审稿人不愿意透露他们的身份。甚至,那些透露了自己身份的审稿人更有可能在他们的审稿报告中建议不修改或少量修改就接受。
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
LIBER Quarterly
LIBER Quarterly Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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