IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i8d10.1007_s11192-024-05103-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are reviewer scores consistent with citations?

Author

Listed:
  • Weixi Xie

    (Dalian University of Technology)

  • Pengfei Jia

    (Dalian University of Technology)

  • Guangyao Zhang

    (Dalian University of Technology
    UNU-MERIT, Maastricht University)

  • Xianwen Wang

    (Dalian University of Technology)

Abstract

Academic evaluation is a critical component of research, with the interaction between quantitative and qualitative assessments becoming a prominent area of focus. This study examines the relationship between peer review scores and citations within the framework of open peer review. Utilizing data from the OpenReview platform for papers presented at the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), the papers were classified into oral presentations, poster presentations, and rejected manuscripts. Weighted scores were calculated using the confidence score method, followed by an analysis using correlation and regression techniques. The findings reveal significant differences among the three categories in terms of review scores and citations, demonstrating a positive correlation between review scores and citations. Additionally, it was found that papers with greater inconsistency in reviews tended to receive higher citations. Reviewers of rejected papers displayed significantly higher confidence in their assessments compared to reviewers of accepted papers. The results highlight the alignment between peer review and traditional bibliometric indicators in the context of open peer review. However, the degree of concordance between the two evaluation methods is not substantial, suggesting that they are not interchangeable. Therefore, traditional bibliometric indicators should be considered an essential complement to peer review. Furthermore, when evaluating the consistency between quantitative and qualitative assessments and the confidence levels of reviewers, peer review demonstrates greater effectiveness than “traditional peer review” in addressing issues of “poor selection”.

Suggested Citation

  • Weixi Xie & Pengfei Jia & Guangyao Zhang & Xianwen Wang, 2024. "Are reviewer scores consistent with citations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 4721-4740, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05103-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05103-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05103-2
    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/s11192-024-05103-2?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. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "Does quality and content matter for citedness? A comparison with para-textual factors and over time," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 419-429.
    2. Guangyao Zhang & Yuqi Wang & Weixi Xie & Han Du & Chunlin Jiang & Xianwen Wang, 2021. "The open access usage advantage: a temporal and spatial analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6187-6199, July.
    3. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2011. "Evaluating research: from informed peer review to bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 499-514, June.
    4. Gemma E. Derrick & Vincenzo Pavone, 2013. "Democratising research evaluation: Achieving greater public engagement with bibliometrics-informed peer review," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(5), pages 563-575, April.
    5. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    6. Jens Jirschitzka & Aileen Oeberst & Richard Göllner & Ulrike Cress, 2017. "Inter-rater reliability and validity of peer reviews in an interdisciplinary field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1059-1092, November.
    7. Elise S Brezis, 2007. "Focal randomisation: An optimal mechanism for the evaluation of R&D projects," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(10), pages 691-698, December.
    8. Claire Donovan, 2007. "Introduction: Future pathways for science policy and research assessment: Metrics vs peer review, quality vs impact," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(8), pages 538-542, October.
    9. Rinia, E. J. & van Leeuwen, Th. N. & van Vuren, H. G. & van Raan, A. F. J., 1998. "Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria: Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 95-107, May.
    10. Lutz Bornmann, 2015. "Interrater reliability and convergent validity of F1000Prime peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(12), pages 2415-2426, December.
    11. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin, 2015. "Which people use which scientific papers? An evaluation of data from F1000 and Mendeley," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 477-487.
    12. Marco Seeber & Alberto Bacchelli, 2017. "Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 567-585, October.
    13. Adam Eyre-Walker & Nina Stoletzki, 2013. "The Assessment of Science: The Relative Merits of Post-Publication Review, the Impact Factor, and the Number of Citations," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-8, October.
    14. Azzurra Ragone & Katsiaryna Mirylenka & Fabio Casati & Maurizio Marchese, 2013. "On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 317-356, November.
    15. Liv Langfeldt, 2006. "The policy challenges of peer review: managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 31-41, April.
    16. Lindell Bromham & Russell Dinnage & Xia Hua, 2016. "Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success," Nature, Nature, vol. 534(7609), pages 684-687, June.
    17. Qianjin Zong & Yafen Xie & Jiechun Liang, 2020. "Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 607-623, October.
    18. O. Mryglod & R. Kenna & Yu. Holovatch & B. Berche, 2013. "Comparison of a citation-based indicator and peer review for absolute and specific measures of research-group excellence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 767-777, December.
    19. Ludo Waltman & Rodrigo Costas, 2014. "F1000 Recommendations as a Potential New Data Source for Research Evaluation: A Comparison With Citations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(3), pages 433-445, March.
    20. Jue Ni & Zhenyue Zhao & Yupo Shao & Shuo Liu & Wanlin Li & Yaoze Zhuang & Junmo Qu & Yu Cao & Nayuan Lian & Jiang Li, 2021. "The influence of opening up peer review on the citations of journal articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9393-9404, December.
    21. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall, 2013. "Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 383-395, November.
    22. Rüdiger Mutz & Lutz Bornmann & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2012. "Heterogeneity of Inter-Rater Reliabilities of Grant Peer Reviews and Its Determinants: A General Estimating Equations Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(10), pages 1-10, October.
    23. Lawrence Smolinsky & Daniel S. Sage & Aaron J. Lercher & Aaron Cao, 2021. "Citations versus expert opinions: citation analysis of featured reviews of the American Mathematical Society," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 3853-3870, May.
    24. Dag W Aksnes & Randi Elisabeth Taxt, 2004. "Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at a Norwegian university," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 33-41, April.
    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. Mojisola Erdt & Aarthy Nagarajan & Sei-Ching Joanna Sin & Yin-Leng Theng, 2016. "Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1117-1166, November.
    2. Wang, Peiling & Su, Jing, 2021. "Post-publication expert recommendations in faculty opinions (F1000Prime): Recommended articles and citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    3. Peiling Wang & Joshua Williams & Nan Zhang & Qiang Wu, 2020. "F1000Prime recommended articles and their citations: an exploratory study of four journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 933-955, February.
    4. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    5. Thelwall, Mike & Fairclough, Ruth, 2015. "The influence of time and discipline on the magnitude of correlations between citation counts and quality scores," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 529-541.
    6. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2011. "National research assessment exercises: a comparison of peer review and bibliometrics rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(3), pages 929-941, December.
    7. Giovanni Abramo & Tindaro Cicero & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2013. "National peer-review research assessment exercises for the hard sciences can be a complete waste of money: the Italian case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 311-324, April.
    8. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha & Emma Stuart & Meiko Makita & Mahshid Abdoli & Paul Wilson & Jonathan Levitt, 2023. "In which fields are citations indicators of research quality?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(8), pages 941-953, August.
    9. Lutz Bornmann, 2015. "Interrater reliability and convergent validity of F1000Prime peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(12), pages 2415-2426, December.
    10. Hou, Li & Wu, Qiang & Xie, Yundong, 2024. "Does open identity of peer reviewers positively relate to citations?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    11. Bornmann, Lutz & Tekles, Alexander & Zhang, Helena H. & Ye, Fred Y., 2019. "Do we measure novelty when we analyze unusual combinations of cited references? A validation study of bibliometric novelty indicators based on F1000Prime data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    12. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Emanuela Reale, 2019. "Peer review versus bibliometrics: Which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 537-554, October.
    13. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    14. Alberto Baccini & Giuseppe De Nicolao, 2016. "Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1651-1671, September.
    15. Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 895-903.
    16. Abramo, Giovanni & Cicero, Tindaro & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2011. "Assessing the varying level of impact measurement accuracy as a function of the citation window length," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 659-667.
    17. Zhang, Yang & Wang, Yang & Du, Haifeng & Havlin, Shlomo, 2024. "Delayed citation impact of interdisciplinary research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    18. Thelwall, Mike & Wilson, Paul, 2014. "Regression for citation data: An evaluation of different methods," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 963-971.
    19. Primož Južnič & Stojan Pečlin & Matjaž Žaucer & Tilen Mandelj & Miro Pušnik & Franci Demšar, 2010. "Scientometric indicators: peer-review, bibliometric methods and conflict of interests," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 429-441, November.
    20. Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 935-950.

    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:129:y:2024:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05103-2. 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.