Corpus ID: 231839486

A Disciplinary View of Changes in Publications' Reference Lists After Peer Review

@article{Akbaritabar2021ADV,
  title={A Disciplinary View of Changes in Publications' Reference Lists After Peer Review},
  author={Aliakbar Akbaritabar and D. Stephen},
  journal={ArXiv},
  year={2021},
  volume={abs/2102.03110}
}
This paper provides insight into the changes manuscripts undergo during peer review, the potential reasons for these changes, and the differences between scientific fields. A growing body of literature is assessing the effect of peer review on manuscripts, however much of this research currently focuses on the social and medical sciences. We matched more than 6,000 preprint-publication pairs across multiple fields and quantified the changes in their reference lists. We also quantified the… Expand
2 Citations
Differences between preprints and journal articles
  • 2021
In this paper, we attempted to obtain knowledge about how research is conducted, especially how journal articles are produced, by comparing preprints with journal articles that are finally published.Expand
Differences between preprints and journal articles : Trial using bioRxiv data
TLDR
The result that there is no significant difference between preprints and journal articles is a finding that has been shown in previous studies and has been replicated in larger and relatively recent situations. Expand

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 45 REFERENCES
The invariant distribution of references in scientific articles
TLDR
Using the full text of 45,000 papers published in the PLoS series of journals as a case study, this paper investigates how references are distributed along the structure of scientific papers as well as the age of these cited references. Expand
Measuring the quality of editorial peer review.
TLDR
Until the objectives of peer-review are properly defined, it will remain almost impossible to assess or improve its effectiveness, and research needed to understand the broader effects of peer review poses many methodologic problems and would require the cooperation of many parts of the scientific community. Expand
Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature
TLDR
Quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is within a similar range as that of peer-reviewed articles, albeit slightly lower on average, supporting the idea that preprints should be considered valid scientific contributions. Expand
Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
TLDR
The peer review and editorial processes slightly improved the readability of original articles and their abstracts, but both remained difficult to read at publication. Expand
When peer reviewers go rogue - Estimated prevalence of citation manipulation by reviewers based on the citation patterns of 69, 000 reviewers
TLDR
It is found that highly suspicious cases of excessive citation manipulation at the level of reviewers can be successfully detected and the scale of suspicion of clear misconduct behaviour is relatively limited. Expand
The emergence of a field: a network analysis of research on peer review
TLDR
A quantitative analysis of peer review as an emerging field of research by revealing patterns and connections between authors, fields and journals from 1950 to 2016 found that the field was marked by three development stages. Expand
Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine
TLDR
Whether the quality of accepted manuscripts was improved by peer-review and editorial processes and, if it was, which aspects were most improved, is studied. Expand
Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions
TLDR
A comparative study of pre-print papers from two distinct science, technology, and medicine corpora and their final published counterparts revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed very little from their pre- print to final published versions. Expand
Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study
TLDR
Peer reviewers fail to detect important deficiencies in reporting of the methods and results of randomised trials, and changes requested by peer reviewers was relatively small. Expand
Frame Search and Re-Search: How Quantitative Sociological Articles Change During Peer Review
Peer review is a central institution in academic publishing, yet its processes and effects on research remain opaque. Empirical studies have (1) been rare because data on the peer review process areExpand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...