IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/elmark/v27y2017i2d10.1007_s12525-017-0247-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Matt

    (University of Bern)

  • Christian Hoerndlein

    (LMU Munich)

  • Thomas Hess

    (LMU Munich)

Abstract

While Internet technologies have provided social networks for researchers as more open means to make their work available to other scholars, the traditionally closed, peer review-based publishing process has remained nearly untouched. We ask researchers about their intention to go one step further and use social peer review (SPR), which enables them to directly publish their work within a web-based social network, where, instead of the traditional pre-publication peer review, it can be evaluated and critiqued by the entire academic community. Based on a sample of 1429 international scholars from various fields and by drawing upon adoption and institutional theory, this study seeks to identify scientists’ motivational drivers for engaging in this new forms of scholarly communication. We find that the adoption of SPR is driven more by extrinsic factors than by researchers’ intrinsic motivation or normative influences to make science more open. Further challenges for SPR are low scores on the most relevant performance criteria, as well as low acceptance by established scientists. However, rather than a substitute, SPR is well perceived as a possible supplement to the traditional peer-based review system.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Matt & Christian Hoerndlein & Thomas Hess, 2017. "Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(2), pages 111-124, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:elmark:v:27:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s12525-017-0247-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12525-017-0247-4?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. Squazzoni, Flaminio & Bravo, Giangiacomo & Takács, Károly, 2013. "Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 287-294.
    2. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    3. Rajagopal, 2014. "The Human Factors," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Architecting Enterprise, chapter 9, pages 225-249, Palgrave Macmillan.
    4. Hess, Thomas & Matt, Christian & Benlian, Alexander & Wiesböck, Florian, 2016. "Options for Formulating a Digital Transformation Strategy," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 81032, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    5. Lei Li & Yan Wang & Guanfeng Liu & Meng Wang & Xindong Wu, 2015. "Context-Aware Reviewer Assignment for Trust Enhanced Peer Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-28, June.
    6. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2015. "ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring Scholarship?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(5), pages 876-889, May.
    7. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    8. Fisher, Robert J, 1993. "Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(2), pages 303-315, September.
    9. Haeussler, Carolin, 2011. "Information-sharing in academia and the industry: A comparative study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 105-122, February.
    10. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    11. Sauermann, Henry & Roach, Michael, 2014. "Not all scientists pay to be scientists: PhDs’ preferences for publishing in industrial employment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 32-47.
    12. Franzoni, Chiara & Sauermann, Henry, 2014. "Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-20.
    13. Sascha Friesike & Bastian Widenmayer & Oliver Gassmann & Thomas Schildhauer, 2015. "Opening science: towards an agenda of open science in academia and industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 581-601, August.
    14. Hess, Thomas & Matt, Christian & Benlian, Alexander & Wiesböck, Florian, 2016. "Options for Formulating a Digital Transformation Strategy," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 82423, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Diego Ponte & Bozena I. Mierzejewska & Stefan Klein, 2017. "The transformation of the academic publishing market: multiple perspectives on innovation," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(2), pages 97-100, May.
    2. Rainer Alt, 2017. "Electronic Markets on academic supply chains," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(2), pages 91-96, May.

    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. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    2. Charles Ayoubi & Boris Thurm, 2023. "Knowledge diffusion and morality: Why do we freely share valuable information with Strangers?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 75-99, January.
    3. Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick & Mueller-Langer, Frank, 2014. "Open access to data: An ideal professed but not practised," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1621-1633.
    4. Roberto Camerani & Daniele Rotolo & Nicola Grassano, 2018. "Do Firms Publish? A Multi-Sectoral Analysis," SPRU Working Paper Series 2018-21, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    5. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    6. Sascha Friesike & Bastian Widenmayer & Oliver Gassmann & Thomas Schildhauer, 2015. "Opening science: towards an agenda of open science in academia and industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 581-601, August.
    7. Swen Nadkarni & Reinhard Prügl, 2021. "Digital transformation: a review, synthesis and opportunities for future research," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 233-341, April.
    8. Ander, Veronika & Cihelka, Petr & Tyrychtr, Jan & Novák, David, 2022. "Towards Compromise User Experience Design in Ambient Intelligent Environment," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 14(2), June.
    9. Severin Oesterle & Arne Buchwald & Nils Urbach, 2022. "Investigating the co-creation of IT consulting service value: empirical findings of a matched pair analysis," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(2), pages 571-597, June.
    10. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick, 2018. "Open access to research data: Strategic delay and the ambiguous welfare effects of mandatory data disclosure," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 20-34.
    11. Cong Cheng & Hongfang Cui, 2024. "Combining digital and legacy technologies: firm digital transformation strategies—evidence from Chinese manufacturing companies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    12. T. O. Tolstykh & L. A. Gamidullayeva & E. V. Shkarupeta, 2018. "Key factors of development of the industrial enterprises in the conditions of the industry 4.0," Russian Journal of Industrial Economics, MISIS, vol. 11(1).
    13. Coskun-Setirek, Abide & Tanrikulu, Zuhal, 2021. "Digital innovations-driven business model regeneration: A process model," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    14. Sascha Kraus & Paul Jones & Norbert Kailer & Alexandra Weinmann & Nuria Chaparro-Banegas & Norat Roig-Tierno, 2021. "Digital Transformation: An Overview of the Current State of the Art of Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, September.
    15. Rugiubei Radu & Pînzaru Florina, 2022. "The digitalization of supply chain management in Romanian companies: an introductive research," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 16(1), pages 1295-1305, August.
    16. Junru Chen & Lei Shen, 2024. "A Synthetic Review on Enterprise Digital Transformation: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-20, February.
    17. Piepponen, Amanda & Ritala, Paavo & Keränen, Joona & Maijanen, Päivi, 2022. "Digital transformation of the value proposition: A single case study in the media industry," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 311-325.
    18. Weber, Ellen & Büttgen, Marion & Bartsch, Silke, 2022. "How to take employees on the digital transformation journey: An experimental study on complementary leadership behaviors in managing organizational change," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 225-238.
    19. Kao, Ling-Jing & Chiu, Chih-Chou & Lin, Hung-Tse & Hung, Yun-Wei & Lu, Cheng-Chin, 2024. "Unveiling the dimensions of digital transformation: A comprehensive taxonomy and assessment model for business," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    20. Burström, Thommie & Parida, Vinit & Lahti, Tom & Wincent, Joakim, 2021. "AI-enabled business-model innovation and transformation in industrial ecosystems: A framework, model and outline for further research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 85-95.

    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:spr:elmark:v:27:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s12525-017-0247-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.