IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v18y2024i3s1751157724000531.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open peer review correlates with altmetrics but not with citations: Evidence from Nature Communications and PLoS One

Author

Listed:
  • Cheng, Xi
  • Wang, Haoran
  • Tang, Li
  • Jiang, Weiyan
  • Zhou, Maotian
  • Wang, Guoyan

Abstract

Against the backdrop of increasing transparency in scientific publications and the complexity of citation motivations, the applicability and efficacy of open peer review (OPR) remain controversial. Utilizing a dataset of citations and altmetrics for all articles published in Nature Communications and PloS One, in this study the impact of OPR is investigated from the dimensions of open review reports and open identity reviewers. The analysis reveals articles subjected to OPR have no obvious advantage in citations but a notable higher score in altmetrics. The distribution of data variation across most disciplines, displaying a statistically significant difference between OPR and non-OPR, mirrors the overall trend. Two potential explanations for the disparity in OPR's impact on citations compared to altmetrics are proposed. The first relates to the quality heterogeneity between OPR and non-OPR research, while the second is related to the diverse authors citing and mentioning articles in distinct communities. This study's findings carry policy implications for future OPR practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Cheng, Xi & Wang, Haoran & Tang, Li & Jiang, Weiyan & Zhou, Maotian & Wang, Guoyan, 2024. "Open peer review correlates with altmetrics but not with citations: Evidence from Nature Communications and PLoS One," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:18:y:2024:i:3:s1751157724000531
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2024.101540
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724000531
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2024.101540?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alessandro Iaria & Carlo Schwarz & Fabian Waldinger, 2018. "Frontier Knowledge and Scientific Production: Evidence from the Collapse of International Science," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(2), pages 927-991.
    2. Dietmar Wolfram & Peiling Wang & Adam Hembree & Hyoungjoo Park, 2020. "Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1033-1051, November.
    3. Jessica K. Polka & Robert Kiley & Boyana Konforti & Bodo Stern & Ronald D. Vale, 2018. "Publish peer reviews," Nature, Nature, vol. 560(7720), pages 545-547, August.
    4. Matthew Cobb, 2017. "The prehistory of biology preprints: A forgotten experiment from the 1960s," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-12, November.
    5. Jue Ni & Zhenyue Zhao & Yupo Shao & Shuo Liu & Wanlin Li & Yaoze Zhuang & Junmo Qu & Yu Cao & Nayuan Lian & Jiang Li, 2021. "The influence of opening up peer review on the citations of journal articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9393-9404, December.
    6. Lutz Bornmann & Markus Wolf & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2012. "Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: how far do comments differ in language use?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 843-856, June.
    7. Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang & Chaomei Chen, 2018. "Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-citation analysis (2009–2016)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 869-892, May.
    8. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    9. Dongqing Lyu & Xuanmin Ruan & Juan Xie & Ying Cheng, 2021. "The classification of citing motivations: a meta-synthesis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3243-3264, April.
    10. Wang, Chenxiao & Qureshi, Israr & Guo, Feng & Zhang, Qingpu, 2022. "Corporate social responsibility and disruptive innovation: The moderating effects of environmental turbulence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1435-1450.
    11. Peiling Wang & Marilyn Domas White, 1999. "A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study II. Decisions at the reading and citing stages," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 50(2), pages 98-114.
    12. Giangiacomo Bravo & Francisco Grimaldo & Emilia López-Iñesta & Bahar Mehmani & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2019. "The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-8, December.
    13. Tang, Li, 2013. "Does “birds of a feather flock together” matter—Evidence from a longitudinal study on US–China scientific collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 330-344.
    14. Jian Wang, 2013. "Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 851-872, March.
    15. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    16. Qianjin Zong & Yafen Xie & Jiechun Liang, 2020. "Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 607-623, October.
    17. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    18. Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 895-903.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hou, Li & Wu, Qiang & Xie, Yundong, 2024. "Does open identity of peer reviewers positively relate to citations?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    2. Thelwall, Mike & Kousha, Kayvan & Stuart, Emma & Makita, Meiko & Abdoli, Mahshid & Wilson, Paul & Levitt, Jonathan, 2023. "Do bibliometrics introduce gender, institutional or interdisciplinary biases into research evaluations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(8).
    3. Chunli Wei & Jingyi Zhao & Jue Ni & Jiang Li, 2023. "What does open peer review bring to scientific articles? Evidence from PLoS journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2763-2776, May.
    4. Eirini Delikoura & Dimitrios Kouis, 2021. "Open Research Data and Open Peer Review: Perceptions of a Medical and Health Sciences Community in Greece," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-19, March.
    5. Sun, Zhuanlan & Clark Cao, C. & Ma, Chao & Li, Yiwei, 2023. "The academic status of reviewers predicts their language use," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    6. Dietmar Wolfram & Peiling Wang & Adam Hembree & Hyoungjoo Park, 2020. "Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1033-1051, November.
    7. Qianjin Zong & Yafen Xie & Jiechun Liang, 2020. "Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 607-623, October.
    8. Weixi Xie & Pengfei Jia & Guangyao Zhang & Xianwen Wang, 2024. "Are reviewer scores consistent with citations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 4721-4740, August.
    9. Sven E. Hug & Mirjam Aeschbach, 2020. "Criteria for assessing grant applications: a systematic review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-15, December.
    10. Cruz-Castro, Laura & Sanz-Menendez, Luis, 2021. "What should be rewarded? Gender and evaluation criteria for tenure and promotion," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    11. Rüdiger Mutz & Tobias Wolbring & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2017. "The effect of the “very important paper” (VIP) designation in Angewandte Chemie International Edition on citation impact: A propensity score matching analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(9), pages 2139-2153, September.
    12. Lawrence Smolinsky & Daniel S. Sage & Aaron J. Lercher & Aaron Cao, 2021. "Citations versus expert opinions: citation analysis of featured reviews of the American Mathematical Society," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 3853-3870, May.
    13. Sun, Zhuanlan & Pang, Ka Lok & Li, Yiwei, 2024. "The fading of status bias during the open peer review process," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3).
    14. Jürgen Janger & Nicole Schmidt-Padickakudy & Anna Strauss-Kollin, 2019. "International Differences in Basic Research Grant Funding. A Systematic Comparison," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61664, January.
    15. Rodríguez Sánchez, Isabel & Makkonen, Teemu & Williams, Allan M., 2019. "Peer review assessment of originality in tourism journals: critical perspective of key gatekeepers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-11.
    16. Zhentao Liang & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2023. "Bias against scientific novelty: A prepublication perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 99-114, January.
    17. Elena Veretennik & Maria Yudkevich, 2023. "Inconsistent quality signals: evidence from the regional journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3675-3701, June.
    18. Meyer, Matthias & Waldkirch, Rüdiger W. & Duscher, Irina & Just, Alexander, 2018. "Drivers of citations: An analysis of publications in “top” accounting journals," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 24-46.
    19. Seeber, Marco & Alon, Ilan & Pina, David G. & Piro, Fredrik Niclas & Seeber, Michele, 2022. "Predictors of applying for and winning an ERC Proof-of-Concept grant: An automated machine learning model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    20. Feliciani, Thomas & Morreau, Michael & Luo, Junwen & Lucas, Pablo & Shankar, Kalpana, 2022. "Designing grant-review panels for better funding decisions: Lessons from an empirically calibrated simulation model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:18:y:2024:i:3:s1751157724000531. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.