IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0193148.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969-2015)

Author

Listed:
  • Francisco Grimaldo
  • Ana Marušić
  • Flaminio Squazzoni

Abstract

This paper examines research on peer review between 1969 and 2015 by looking at records indexed from the Scopus database. Although it is often argued that peer review has been poorly investigated, we found that the number of publications in this field doubled from 2005. A half of this work was indexed as research articles, a third as editorial notes and literature reviews and the rest were book chapters or letters. We identified the most prolific and influential scholars, the most cited publications and the most important journals in the field. Co-authorship network analysis showed that research on peer review is fragmented, with the largest group of co-authors including only 2.1% of the whole community. Co-citation network analysis indicated a fragmented structure also in terms of knowledge. This shows that despite its central role in research, peer review has been examined only through small-scale research projects. Our findings would suggest that there is need to encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing across different research communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Francisco Grimaldo & Ana Marušić & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2018. "Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969-2015)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0193148
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193148
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193148
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193148&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0193148?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vladimir Batagelj & Anuška Ferligoj & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2017. "The emergence of a field: a network analysis of research on peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 503-532, October.
    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. Shuo Xu & Liyuan Hao & Xin An & Hongshen Pang & Ting Li, 2020. "Review on emerging research topics with key-route main path analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 607-624, January.
    2. Balázs Győrffy & Andrea Magda Nagy & Péter Herman & Ádám Török, 2018. "Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: an evaluation of the first 117 research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 409-426, October.
    3. Abdelghani Maddi, 2018. "Analyse scientométrique de la crise économique," CEPN Working Papers 2018-08, Centre d'Economie de l'Université de Paris Nord.
    4. Daria Maltseva & Vladimir Batagelj, 2020. "Towards a systematic description of the field using keywords analysis: main topics in social networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 357-382, April.
    5. Flavia Filippin, 2021. "Do main paths reflect technological trajectories? Applying main path analysis to the semiconductor manufacturing industry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6443-6477, August.
    6. Francesco Pasimeni, 2020. "The Origin of the Sharing Economy Meets the Legacy of Fractional Ownership," SPRU Working Paper Series 2020-19, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    7. Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo & Thong Pham, 2018. "The evolutions of the rich get richer and the fit get richer phenomena in scholarly networks: the case of the strategic management journal," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 363-383, July.
    8. Akbaritabar, Aliakbar & Stephen, Dimity & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2022. "A study of referencing changes in preprint-publication pairs across multiple fields," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    9. 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.
    10. repec:hal:cepnwp:hal-01922256 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Petersen, Alexander M., 2019. "Megajournal mismanagement: Manuscript decision bias and anomalous editor activity at PLOS ONE," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    12. Daria Maltseva & Vladimir Batagelj, 2020. "iMetrics: the development of the discipline with many names," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 313-359, October.
    13. Daria Maltseva & Vladimir Batagelj, 2019. "Social network analysis as a field of invasions: bibliographic approach to study SNA development," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 1085-1128, November.
    14. Aliakbar Akbaritabar & Vincent Antonio Traag & Alberto Caimo & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2020. "Italian sociologists: a community of disconnected groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2361-2382, September.
    15. Batagelj, Vladimir & Maltseva, Daria, 2020. "Temporal bibliographic networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1).
    16. Abdelghani Maddi, 2018. "Analyse scientométrique de la crise économique : Courants de pensée, auteurs influents et thématiques," Working Papers hal-01922256, HAL.
    17. Daria Maltseva & Vladimir Batagelj, 2021. "Journals publishing social network analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3593-3620, April.
    18. Wenqing Wu & Haixu Xi & Chengzhi Zhang, 2024. "Are the confidence scores of reviewers consistent with the review content? Evidence from top conference proceedings in AI," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4109-4135, July.
    19. Daria Maltseva & Vladimir Batagelj, 2022. "Collaboration between authors in the field of social network analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3437-3470, June.
    20. John S. Liu & Louis Y. Y. Lu & Mei Hsiu-Ching Ho, 2019. "A few notes on main path analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 379-391, April.
    21. Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2019. "Lutz Bornmann: Recipient of the 2019 Derek John de Solla Price Medal," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1235-1238, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0193148. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.