IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/phsmap/v582y2021ics0378437121005185.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic patterns of open review process

Author

Listed:
  • Zhao, Zhi-Dan
  • Chen, Jiahao
  • Lu, Yichuan
  • Zhao, Na
  • Jiang, Dazhi
  • Wang, Bing-Hong

Abstract

Recently, the open review process has attracted the attention of more and more researchers. In order to deeply and quantitatively understand the process, we employ statistical analysis methods, combining human dynamics theory with the assortative mixing analysis of networks to study the process. Our results present the burst characteristics and preference characteristics of authors and reviewers during the review process. Simultaneously, these results demonstrate the irrelevance between the popularity of the manuscript research topic and the manuscript acceptance rate. Moreover, using the assortative mixing analysis method confirmed that the keywords network basically has obvious assortativity. Furthermore, these results suggest that although no inevitable connection between keywords and the acceptance rate of the manuscript, the combination of keywords in the manuscript is influential. Our research results provide useful points for the design of the review system and paper submission. Future work should analyze more data from other disciplines or deconstruct the underlying mechanism of the open review process.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhao, Zhi-Dan & Chen, Jiahao & Lu, Yichuan & Zhao, Na & Jiang, Dazhi & Wang, Bing-Hong, 2021. "Dynamic patterns of open review process," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 582(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:phsmap:v:582:y:2021:i:c:s0378437121005185
    DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2021.126245
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437121005185
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only. Journal offers the option of making the article available online on Science direct for a fee of $3,000
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.physa.2021.126245?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. Björk, Bo-Christer & Solomon, David, 2013. "The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 914-923.
    2. Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of Greece," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 7(4), pages 7-93.
    3. Ofer H. Azar, 2007. "The Slowdown In First‐Response Times Of Economics Journals: Can It Be Beneficial?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 179-187, January.
    4. Zhao, Zhi-Dan & Gao, Ya-Chun & Cai, Shi-Min & Zhou, Tao, 2016. "Dynamic patterns of academic forum activities," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 461(C), pages 117-124.
    5. 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.
    6. Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of Denmark," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 8(4), pages 7-125.
    7. Zhang, Jia-Bing & Gao, Ya-Chun & Cai, Shi-Min, 2020. "The hierarchical structure of stock market in times of global financial crisis," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 542(C).
    8. Squazzoni, Flaminio & Gandelli, Claudio, 2012. "Saint Matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 265-275.
    9. Simone Righi & Károly Takács, 2017. "The miracle of peer review and development in science: an agent-based model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 587-607, October.
    10. Alex Kentsis, 2006. "Mechanisms and models of human dynamics," Nature, Nature, vol. 441(7092), pages 5-5, May.
    11. Linyuan Lü & Tao Zhou & Qian-Ming Zhang & H. Eugene Stanley, 2016. "The H-index of a network node and its relation to degree and coreness," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-7, April.
    12. Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of the European Community," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 8(4), pages 127-261.
    13. Huang, Cui & Yue, Xiaoxu & Chen, Jing & Xu, Weixiao & Li, Jiang, 2019. "The effect of “open access” on journal impact factors: A causal analysis of medical journals," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 533(C).
    14. In-Uck Park & Mike W. Peacey & Marcus R. Munafò, 2014. "Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review," Nature, Nature, vol. 506(7486), pages 93-96, February.
    15. Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits, 2017. "Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 633-650, October.
    16. Flaminio Squazzoni & Francisco Grimaldo & Ana Marušić, 2017. "Publishing: Journals could share peer-review data," Nature, Nature, vol. 546(7658), pages 352-352, June.
    17. Junming Huang & Alexander J. Gates & Roberta Sinatra & Albert-László Barabási, 2020. "Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117(9), pages 4609-4616, March.
    18. Cherkashin, Ivan & Demidova, Svetlana & Imai, Susumu & Krishna, Kala, 2009. "The inside scoop: Acceptance and rejection at the journal of international economics," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 120-132, February.
    19. An Zeng & Zhesi Shen & Jianlin Zhou & Ying Fan & Zengru Di & Yougui Wang & H. Eugene Stanley & Shlomo Havlin, 2019. "Increasing trend of scientists to switch between topics," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    20. Christine Wennerås & Agnes Wold, 1997. "Nepotism and sexism in peer-review," Nature, Nature, vol. 387(6631), pages 341-343, May.
    21. Zhou, Yuhao & Wang, Ruijie & Zeng, An & Zhang, Yi-Cheng, 2020. "Identifying prize-winning scientists by a competition-aware ranking," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3).
    22. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2007. "Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 226-238.
    23. Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of the Netherlands," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 7(3), pages 115-214.
    24. Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of Canada," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 8(4), pages 263-387.
    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. Besim Bilalli & Rana Faisal Munir & Alberto Abelló, 2021. "A framework for assessing the peer review duration of journals: case study in computer science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 545-563, January.
    2. ederico Bianchi & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2022. "Can transparency undermine peer review? A simulation model of scientist behavior under open peer review [Reviewing Peer Review]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 791-800.
    3. 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).
    4. Maciej J. Mrowinski & Agata Fronczak & Piotr Fronczak & Olgica Nedic & Aleksandar Dekanski, 2020. "The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 115-133, October.
    5. Lucas Rodriguez Forti & Luiz A. Solino & Judit K. Szabo, 2021. "Trade-off between urgency and reduced editorial capacity affect publication speed in ecological and medical journals during 2020," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits, 2017. "Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 633-650, October.
    7. Stephen A Gallo & Afton S Carpenter & Scott R Glisson, 2013. "Teleconference versus Face-to-Face Scientific Peer Review of Grant Application: Effects on Review Outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-9, August.
    8. Siddarth Srinivasan & Jamie Morgenstern, 2021. "Auctions and Peer Prediction for Academic Peer Review," Papers 2109.00923, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    9. Katrin Hussinger & Lorenzo Palladini, 2024. "Information accessibility and knowledge creation: the impact of Google’s withdrawal from China on scientific research," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 753-783, July.
    10. Tóth, Tamás & Demeter, Márton & Csuhai, Sándor & Major, Zsolt Balázs, 2024. "When career-boosting is on the line: Equity and inequality in grant evaluation, productivity, and the educational backgrounds of Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions individual fellows in social sciences an," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    11. José Cendejas Bueno & Cecilia Font de Villanueva, 2015. "Convergence of inflation with a common cycle: estimating and modelling Spanish historical inflation from the 16th to the 18th centuries," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1643-1665, June.
    12. Bravo, Giangiacomo & Farjam, Mike & Grimaldo Moreno, Francisco & Birukou, Aliaksandr & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2018. "Hidden connections: Network effects on editorial decisions in four computer science journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 101-112.
    13. Lokman Tutuncu, 2023. "All-pervading insider bias alters review time in Turkish university journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3743-3791, June.
    14. Day, Theodore Eugene, 2015. "The big consequences of small biases: A simulation of peer review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1266-1270.
    15. Louise Bedsworth, 2012. "California’s local health agencies and the state’s climate adaptation strategy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 111(1), pages 119-133, March.
    16. Amy Hinsley & William J Sutherland & Alison Johnston, 2017. "Men ask more questions than women at a scientific conference," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-14, October.
    17. Yu, Xiaoyao & Szymanski, Boleslaw K. & Jia, Tao, 2021. "Become a better you: Correlation between the change of research direction and the change of scientific performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    18. Michał Krawczyk & Magdalena Smyk, 2015. "Gender, beauty and support networks in academia: evidence from a field experiment," Working Papers 2015-43, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    19. Justus Haucap & Nima Moshgbar & W. Benedikt Schmal, 2021. "The impact of the German 'DEAL' on competition in the academic publishing market," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2027-2049, December.
    20. Nicholas Yee Liang Hing & Xin Ci Wong & Pei Xuan Kuan & Mohan Dass Pathmanathan & Mohd Aizuddin Abdul Rahman & Kalaiarasu M. Peariasamy, 2022. "Scientific Abstract to Full Paper: Publication Rate over a 3-Year Period in a Malaysian Clinical Research Conference," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, October.

    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:phsmap:v:582:y:2021:i:c:s0378437121005185. 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.journals.elsevier.com/physica-a-statistical-mechpplications/ .

    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.