Do Author-Suggested Reviewers Rate Submissions More Favorably than Editor-Suggested Reviewers? A Study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

@article{Bornmann2010DoAR,
  title={Do Author-Suggested Reviewers Rate Submissions More Favorably than Editor-Suggested Reviewers? A Study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics},
  author={L. Bornmann and Hans-Dieter Daniel},
  journal={PLoS ONE},
  year={2010},
  volume={5}
}
Background Ratings in journal peer review can be affected by sources of bias. The bias variable investigated here was the information on whether authors had suggested a possible reviewer for their manuscript, and whether the editor had taken up that suggestion or had chosen a reviewer that had not been suggested by the authors. Studies have shown that author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers do. Methodology/Principal Findings Reviewers' ratings… Expand

Tables and Topics from this paper

Should authors suggest reviewers? A comparative study of the performance of author‐suggested and editor‐selected reviewers at a biological journal
  • Yan Liang
  • Psychology, Computer Science
  • Learn. Publ.
  • 2018
TLDR
The results suggest that journals/editors should collect and consult at least one review from other sources than author suggested, and when reviewers nominated by authors are considered, priority should be given to those with different locations from the authors. Expand
Characteristics of Peer Review Reports: Editor-Suggested Versus Author-Suggested Reviewers
TLDR
Comparisons of the review reports and decisions of reviewers who are members of the editorial board of the European Scientific Journal with those reviewers suggested by the authors and who are not affiliated with the journal concluded that factors such as time and country of the reviewers influence their decisions. Expand
Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models
TLDR
Reviewers suggested by authors provide reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but are significantly more likely to recommend acceptance in the Journal of Inflammation under open peer review compared with single blind. Expand
Author‐suggested reviewers: gender differences and influences on the peer review process at an ecology journal
TLDR
Most strikingly, author-preferred reviewers rated papers more positively than did editor-selected reviewers, and papers reviewed by author- Preference reviewers were much more likely to be invited for revision than were papers review by editor- selected reviewers. Expand
Reviewer selection biases editorial decisions on manuscripts
TLDR
A bias toward lower rejection rates when ASRs assess a paper is confirmed, which led to the decision to abandon the option to recommend reviewers at the Journal of Neurochemistry. Expand
Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review
TLDR
In a mathematical model of the peer review process, the accuracy of public reader-reviewers can surpass that of a small group of expert reviewers if the group of public reviewers is of sufficient size. Expand
Effect of recommendations from reviewers suggested or excluded by authors.
TLDR
It is found that author-suggested reviewers, as a group, make more positive recommendations than editor- Suggested reviewers (P = 0.01), although the difference disappears when recommendations are compared with those of editor- suggested reviewers of the same manuscript. Expand
Previously titled: Bias in peer review: a case study
Peer review is the "gold standard" for evaluating journal and conference papers, research proposals, on-going projects and university departments. However, it is widely believed that current systemsExpand
Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study
TLDR
Analysis of three datasets providing information on the attributes of authors and reviewers and review outcomes finds no evidence of bias in terms of gender, or the language or prestige of author and reviewer institutions in any of the three datasets, but some weak evidence of regional bias in all three. Expand
Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?
TLDR
The ethics, fairness and validity of the request, by editors, of authors to suggest peer reviewers during the submission process is queried. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 63 REFERENCES
Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study
TLDR
Author-nominated reviewers produced reviews of similar quality to editor-chosen reviewers but were more likely to recommend acceptance during the initial stages of peer review. Expand
Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
TLDR
Author- and editor- Suggested reviewers did not differ in the quality of their reviews, but author-suggested reviewers tended to make more favorable recommendations for publication. Expand
A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors.
OBJECTIVE To compare reviews done by editor-selected reviewers with reviews by author-suggested reviewers, examining the quality, timeliness, and recommendations of the 2 sets of reviewers. STUDYExpand
Reviewer and editor biases in journal peer review: an investigation of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie International Edition
This study examined the peer review process at the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition — the referees' recommendations and the editors' decisions to accept or reject submitted manuscriptsExpand
Reliability of reviewers' ratings when using public peer review: a case study
TLDR
The results of the study show that inter‐rater reliability is low (kappa coefficient) or reasonable (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient) in public peer review. Expand
From black box to white box at open access journals: predictive validity of manuscript reviewing and editorial decisions at Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
TLDR
The predictive validity of the ACP peer review system is examined, namely, whether the process selects the best of the manuscripts submitted and whether the reviewers' ratings and the editorial decisions at ACP covary with citation counts for the published manuscripts. Expand
A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process.
TLDR
Reports produced by referees selected by BJS editors were more critical than those chosen by authors of the papers, and constructive criticism might improve the final article and assist editors to make decisions about acceptance or rejection. Expand
Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again
A growing interest in and concern about the adequacy and fairness of modern peer-review practices in publication and funding are apparent across a wide range of scientific disciplines. AlthoughExpand
Peer Review in the Funding of Research in Higher Education: The Australian Experience
In this article we evaluate the peer review process used to fund Australian university research across all disciplines. Peer reviews of research proposals (2,989 proposals, 6,233 external reviewers)Expand
Impartial Judgment by the “Gatekeepers” of Science: Fallibility and Accountability in the Peer Review Process
TLDR
This article describes several pitfalls that can impede reviewers' impartial judgement and suggests that increasing reviewers' awareness of the pitfalls, accountability, and vigilance can improve fairness in the peer review process. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...