Characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers,Research Integrity and Peer Review

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › Research Integrity and Peer Review › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

Characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers
Research Integrity and Peer Review Pub Date : 2022-02-21 , DOI: 10.1186/s41073-022-00121-1
Danielle B Rice _{1,

2} , Ba' Pham ₃ , Justin Presseau _{4,

5,

6} , Andrea C Tricco _{7,

8,

9} , David Moher _{1,

4,

5}

Affiliation

Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Science, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Faculty of Medicine, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Faculty of Social Sciences, School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Knowledge Translation Program, Unity Health Toronto, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
Epidemiology Division and Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.

Background

The demand for peer reviewers is often perceived as disproportionate to the supply and availability of reviewers. Considering characteristics associated with peer review behaviour can allow for the development of solutions to manage the growing demand for peer reviewers. The objective of this research was to compare characteristics among two groups of reviewers registered in Publons.

Methods

A descriptive cross-sectional study design was used to compare characteristics between (1) individuals completing at least 100 peer reviews (‘mega peer reviewers’) from January 2018 to December 2018 as and (2) a control group of peer reviewers completing between 1 and 18 peer reviews over the same time period. Data was provided by Publons, which offers a repository of peer reviewer activities in addition to tracking peer reviewer publications and research metrics. Mann Whitney tests and chi-square tests were conducted comparing characteristics (e.g., number of publications, number of citations, word count of peer review) of mega peer reviewers to the control group of reviewers.

Results

A total of 1596 peer reviewers had data provided by Publons. A total of 396 M peer reviewers and a random sample of 1200 control group reviewers were included. A greater proportion of mega peer reviews were male (92%) as compared to the control reviewers (70% male). Mega peer reviewers demonstrated a significantly greater average number of total publications, citations, receipt of Publons awards, and a higher average h index as compared to the control group of reviewers (all p < .001). We found no statistically significant differences in the number of words between the groups (p > .428).

Conclusions

Mega peer reviewers registered in the Publons database also had a higher number of publications and citations as compared to a control group of reviewers. Additional research that considers motivations associated with peer review behaviour should be conducted to help inform peer reviewing activity.

中文翻译：

“超级”同行评审员的特征

背景

对同行评审员的需求通常被认为与评审员的供应和可用性不成比例。考虑与同行评审行为相关的特征可以允许开发解决方案来管理对同行评审员不断增长的需求。本研究的目的是比较在 Publons 注册的两组审稿人的特征。

方法

描述性横断面研究设计用于比较（1）2018 年 1 月至 2018 年 12 月完成至少 100 次同行评审（“大型同行评审员”）的个人和（2）完成 1 次同行评审员的对照组之间的特征。和 18 次同行评审在同一时期。数据由 Publons 提供，除了跟踪同行评审员的出版物和研究指标外，它还提供同行评审员活动的存储库。进行曼惠特尼检验和卡方检验，比较大型同行评审员与评审员对照组的特征（例如，出版物数量、引用次数、同行评审字数）。

结果

共有 1596 位同行评审员拥有 Publons 提供的数据。共纳入 3.96 亿同行评审员和随机抽样的 1200 名对照组评审员。与对照审稿人（70% 男性）相比，更大比例的大型同行评审是男性（92%）。与对照组的审稿人相比，超级同行审稿人的平均出版物总数、引用次数、获得 Publons 奖项的平均数量以及更高的平均 h 指数均显着增加（所有p < .001）。我们发现各组之间的词数没有统计学上的显着差异 ( p > .428)。