IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v128y2023i8d10.1007_s11192-023-04771-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Linguistic and semantic characteristics of articles and peer review reports in Social Sciences and Medical and Health Sciences: analysis of articles published in Open Research Central

Author

Listed:
  • Andrijana Perković Paloš

    (University of Split)

  • Antonija Mijatović

    (University of Split)

  • Ivan Buljan

    (University of Split
    University of Split)

  • Daniel Garcia-Costa

    (University of Valencia)

  • Elena Álvarez-García

    (University of Valencia)

  • Francisco Grimaldo

    (University of Valencia)

  • Ana Marušić

    (University of Split)

Abstract

We aimed to examine the differences in articles, peer review and editorial processes in Medical and Health Sciences vs. Social Sciences. Our data source was Open Research Central (ORC) portal, which hosts several journal platforms for post-publication peer review, allowing the analysis of articles from their submission, regardless of the publishing outcome. The study sample included 51 research articles that had Social Sciences tag only and 361 research articles with Medical and Health Sciences tag only. Levenshtein distance analysis showed that text changes over article versions in social science papers were statistically significant in the Introduction section. Articles from Social Sciences had longer Introduction and Conclusion sections and higher percentage of articles with merged Discussion and Conclusion sections. Articles from Medical and Health Sciences followed the Introduction-Methods-Results-Discussion (IMRaD) structure more frequently and contained fewer declarations and non IMRaD sections, but more figures. Social Sciences articles had higher Word Count, higher Clout, and less positive Tone. Linguistic analysis revealed a more positive Tone for peer review reports for articles in Social Sciences and higher Achievement and Research variables. Peer review reports were significantly longer for articles in Social Sciences but the two disciplines did not differ in the characteristics of the peer review process at all stages between the submitted and published version. This may be due to the fact that they were published on the same publication platform, which uses uniform policies and procedures for both types of articles.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrijana Perković Paloš & Antonija Mijatović & Ivan Buljan & Daniel Garcia-Costa & Elena Álvarez-García & Francisco Grimaldo & Ana Marušić, 2023. "Linguistic and semantic characteristics of articles and peer review reports in Social Sciences and Medical and Health Sciences: analysis of articles published in Open Research Central," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4707-4729, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04771-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04771-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-023-04771-w
    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/s11192-023-04771-w?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. Flaminio Squazzoni & Giangiacomo Bravo & Francisco Grimaldo & Daniel García-Costa & Mike Farjam & Bahar Mehmani, 2021. "Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Anastasia Buyalskaya & Marcos Gallo & Colin F. Camerer, 2021. "The golden age of social science," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118(5), pages 2002923118-, February.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Hren, Darko & Pina, David G. & Norman, Christopher R. & Marušić, Ana, 2022. "What makes or breaks competitive research proposals? A mixed-methods analysis of research grant evaluation reports," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    6. van den Besselaar, Peter & Mom, Charlie, 2022. "The effect of writing style on success in grant applications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    7. 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).
    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. Shan Jiang, 2021. "Understanding authors' psychological reactions to peer reviews: a text mining approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6085-6103, July.
    2. Peng, Wen & Yue, Mingliang & Sun, Mingyue & Ma, Tingcan, 2024. "Revision and academic impact: A case study of bioRxiv preprint papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    3. Hren, Darko & Pina, David G. & Norman, Christopher R. & Marušić, Ana, 2022. "What makes or breaks competitive research proposals? A mixed-methods analysis of research grant evaluation reports," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    4. Hugo S. Gonçalves & Sérgio Moro, 2023. "On the economic impacts of COVID‐19: A text mining literature analysis," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 375-394, February.
    5. Ivana Drvenica & Giangiacomo Bravo & Lucija Vejmelka & Aleksandar Dekanski & Olgica Nedić, 2018. "Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    6. Marcel Knöchelmann, 2019. "Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, November.
    7. Michael C Grant & Luke Geoghegan & Marc Arbyn & Zakaria Mohammed & Luke McGuinness & Emily L Clarke & Ryckie G Wade, 2020. "The prevalence of symptoms in 24,410 adults infected by the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis of 148 studies from 9 countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-19, June.
    8. Li, Heyang & Wu, Meijun & Wang, Yougui & Zeng, An, 2022. "Bibliographic coupling networks reveal the advantage of diversification in scientific projects," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    9. Fabian Scheidegger & Andre Briviba & Bruno S. Frey, 2023. "Behind the curtains of academic publishing: strategic responses of economists and business scholars," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4765-4790, August.
    10. Constantin Bürgi & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2022. "The influence of Covid-19 on publications in economics: bibliometric evidence from five working paper series," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5175-5189, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Zhang, Zuo & Tang, Wenwu, 2023. "Mixed landform with high-rise buildings: A spatial analysis integrating horizon-vertical dimension in natural-human urban systems," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    13. Beata Woźniak-Jęchorek, 2023. "Experiments in Modern Economics – Expansion and Technological and Institutional Innovations in the U.S," Ekonomista, Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne, issue 1, pages 78-101.
    14. 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.
    15. Beate Völker, 2021. "Network Thinking in Human Geography: Musings of a Newbie," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 112(4), pages 474-481, September.
    16. 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.
    17. Peter Andre & Armin Falk, 2021. "What’s Worth Knowing? Economists’ Opinions about Economics," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 102, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    18. Hendrik P. Dalen, 2021. "How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1675-1694, February.
    19. Zhuanlan Sun & C. Clark Cao & Sheng Liu & Yiwei Li & Chao Ma, 2024. "Behavioral consequences of second-person pronouns in written communications between authors and reviewers of scientific papers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    20. Sahar Vahdati & Said Fathalla & Christoph Lange & Andreas Behrend & Aysegul Say & Zeynep Say & Sören Auer, 2021. "A comprehensive quality assessment framework for scientific events," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 641-682, January.

    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:128:y:2023:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04771-w. 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.