IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v121y2019i1d10.1007_s11192-019-03197-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who is peer reviewed? Comparing publication patterns of peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed papers in Japanese political science

Author

Listed:
  • Daisuke Sakai

Abstract

Until recently, some fields of social sciences and humanities have developed without peer-review (PR) systems. Since the introduction of the PR system, non-peer-reviewed studies have been widely published and different publication patterns have emerged between peer-reviewed (PRd) and non-peer-reviewed (NPRd) articles. This study examines the patterns of PRd and NPRd papers in political science journals in Japan. According to this study’s analysis, PRd papers are mainly published by young researchers in their thirties. As researchers age, the proportion of PRd papers they publish decreases. The life cycle pattern of a researcher is structured regardless of the journals or the research methods. If the generalized norms and patterns of behavior related to PR are referred to as the PR culture, then there is the PR culture in this field that determines, “PR is a young person’s game.” Here, the PR system is expected not only to evaluate research content but also to assess newcomers in the field.

Suggested Citation

  • Daisuke Sakai, 2019. "Who is peer reviewed? Comparing publication patterns of peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed papers in Japanese political science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 65-80, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:121:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03197-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03197-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-019-03197-7
    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/s11192-019-03197-7?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. Sigelman, Lee, 2006. "The Coevolution of American Political Science and the American Political Science Review," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 100(4), pages 463-478, November.
    2. Tobias Opthof & Loet Leydesdorff, 2011. "A comment to the paper by Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 87, 467–481, 2011," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 1011-1016, September.
    3. Emanuel Kulczycki & Tim C. E. Engels & Janne Pölönen & Kasper Bruun & Marta Dušková & Raf Guns & Robert Nowotniak & Michal Petr & Gunnar Sivertsen & Andreja Istenič Starčič & Alesia Zuccala, 2018. "Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: evidence from eight European countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 463-486, July.
    4. Dondio, Pierpaolo & Casnici, Niccolò & Grimaldo, Francisco & Gilbert, Nigel & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2019. "The “invisible hand” of peer review: The implications of author-referee networks on peer review in a scholarly journal," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 708-716.
    5. 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.
    6. Paula E. Stephan, 2010. "The Economics of Science - Funding for Research," ICER Working Papers 12-2010, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    7. Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), 2010. "Handbook of the Economics of Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    8. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan Eck & Thed N. Leeuwen & Martijn S. Visser & Anthony F. J. Raan, 2011. "On the correlation between bibliometric indicators and peer review: reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 1017-1022, September.
    9. Federico Bianchi & Francisco Grimaldo & Giangiacomo Bravo & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2018. "The peer review game: an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1401-1420, September.
    10. Anthony F. J. Raan, 2006. "Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(3), pages 491-502, June.
    11. Tibor Braun & Ildikó Dióspatonyi, 2005. "The journal gatekeepers of major publishing houses of core science journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 64(2), pages 113-120, August.
    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. Aboal, Diego & Tacsir, Ezequiel, 2016. "The impact of ex-ante subsidies to researchers on researcher's productivity: Evidence from a developing country," MERIT Working Papers 2016-019, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    2. Gangan Prathap, 2012. "Energy indicators and percentile ranking normalization," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 997-1003, June.
    3. Lissoni, Francesco & Montobbio, Fabio & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2013. "Inventorship and authorship as attribution rights: An enquiry into the economics of scientific credit," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 49-69.
    4. Paula E. Stephan, 2011. "The Biomedical Workforce in the US: An Example of Positive Feedbacks," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 10, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Thomas Hellmann & Enrico Perotti, 2011. "The Circulation of Ideas in Firms and Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(10), pages 1813-1826, October.
    6. Jürgen Janger, 2013. "Hochschulsteuerung im Kontext der Autonomie der Universitäten," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 86(2), pages 159-171, February.
    7. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall, 2013. "Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 383-395, November.
    8. Zhifeng Yin & Qiang Zhi, 2017. "Dancing with the academic elite: a promotion or hindrance of research production?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 17-41, January.
    9. Sander Gerritsen & Karen van der Wiel & Erik Plug, 2013. "Up or out? How individual research grants affect academic careers in the Netherlands," CPB Discussion Paper 249.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    10. Murayama, Kota & Nirei, Makoto & Shimizu, Hiroshi, 2015. "Management of science, serendipity, and research performance: Evidence from a survey of scientists in Japan and the U.S," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 862-873.
    11. Juan Ricardo Perilla Jiménez, 2021. "Sistemas de innovación y crecimiento: ¿una alternativa al viejo enfoque de las ventajas del atraso económico?," Documentos Departamento de Economía 19075, Universidad del Norte.
    12. Benavente, José Miguel & Crespi, Gustavo & Figal Garone, Lucas & Maffioli, Alessandro, 2012. "The impact of national research funds: A regression discontinuity approach to the Chilean FONDECYT," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1461-1475.
    13. Gangan Prathap, 2012. "A comment to the papers by Opthof and Leydesdorff, Scientometrics, 88, 1011–1016, 2011 and Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 88, 1017–1022, 2011," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 737-743, February.
    14. Sander Gerritsen & Karen van der Wiel & Erik Plug, 2013. "Up or out? How individual research grants affect academic careers in the Netherlands," CPB Discussion Paper 249, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    15. Juan Ricardo Perilla Jimenez, 2019. "Mainstream and evolutionary views of technology, economic growth and catching up," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 823-852, July.
    16. Matteo Migheli & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2014. "Open Access Journals & Academics’ Behaviour," ICER Working Papers 03-2014, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    17. Takanori Ida & Naomi Fukuzawa, 2013. "Effects of large-scale research funding programs: a Japanese case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1253-1273, March.
    18. Ceccagnoli, Marco & Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P., 2024. "Reaching beyond low-hanging fruit: Basic research and innovativeness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    19. Nicolas Carayol & Elodie Carpentier, 2022. "The spread of academic invention: a nationwide case study on French data (1995–2012)," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1395-1421, October.
    20. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).

    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:scient:v:121:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03197-7. 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.