An official website of the United States government
This is the first of a series of studies that explore the relationship between disciplinary background and the weighting of various elements of a manuscript in peer reviewers’ determination of publication recommendations. Research questions include: (1) To what extent are tacit criteria for determining quality or value of EER manuscripts influenced by reviewers’ varied disciplinary backgrounds and levels of expertise? and (2) To what extent does mentored peer review professional development influence reviewers’ EER manuscript evaluations? Data were collected from 27 mentors and mentees in a peer review professional development program. Participants reviewed the same two manuscripts, using a form to identify strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Responses were coded by two researchers (70% IRR). Our findings suggest that disciplinary background influences reviewers’ evaluation of EER manuscripts. We also found evidence that professional development can improve reviewers’ understanding of EER disciplinary conventions. Deeper understanding of the epistemological basis for manuscript reviews may reveal ways to strengthen professional preparation in engineering education as well as other disciplines.
more »
« less
Author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts much more favorably: A cross-sectional analysis of the neuroscience section of PLOS ONE
Peer review is an important part of science, aimed at providing expert and objective assessment of a manuscript. Because of many factors, including time constraints, unique expertise needs, and deference, many journals ask authors to suggest peer reviewers for their own manuscript. Previous researchers have found differing effects about this practice that might be inconclusive due to sample sizes. In this article, we analyze the association between author-suggested reviewers and review invitation, review scores, acceptance rates, and subjective review quality using a large dataset of close to 8K manuscripts from 46K authors and 21K reviewers from the journal PLOS ONE’s Neuroscience section. We found that all-author-suggested review panels increase the chances of acceptance by 20 percent points vs all-editor-suggested panels while agreeing to review less often. While PLOS ONE has since ended the practice of asking for suggested reviewers, many others still use them and perhaps should consider the results presented here.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1933803
- PAR ID:
- 10490457
- Editor(s):
- Wicherts, Jelte M.
- Publisher / Repository:
- PLOS
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- PLOS ONE
- Volume:
- 17
- Issue:
- 12
- ISSN:
- 1932-6203
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- e0273994
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This is the first of a series of studies that explore the relationship between disciplinary background and the weighting of various elements of a manuscript in peer reviewers’ determination of publication recommendations. Research questions include: (1) To what extent are tacit criteria for determining quality or value of EER manuscripts influenced by reviewers’ varied disciplinary backgrounds and levels of expertise? and (2) To what extent does mentored peer review professional development influence reviewers’ EER manuscript evaluations? Data were collected from 27 mentors and mentees in a peer review professional development program. Participants reviewed the same two manuscripts, using a form to identify strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Responses were coded by two researchers (70% IRR). Our findings suggest that disciplinary background influences reviewers’ evaluation of EER manuscripts. We also found evidence that professional development can improve reviewers’ understanding of EER disciplinary conventions. Deeper understanding of the epistemological basis for manuscript reviews may reveal ways to strengthen professional preparation in engineering education as well as other disciplines.more » « less
-
This research paper study was situated within a peer review mentoring program in which novice reviewers were paired with mentors who are former National Science Foundation (NSF) program directors with experience running discipline-based education research (DBER) panels. Whether it be a manuscript or grant proposal, the outcome of peer review can greatly influence academic careers and the impact of research on a field. Yet the criteria upon which reviewers base their recommendations and the processes they follow as they review are poorly understood. Mentees reviewed three previously submitted proposals to the NSF and drafted pre-panel reviews regarding the proposals’ intellectual merit and broader impacts, strengths, and weaknesses relative to solicitation-specific criteria. After participation in one mock review panel, mentees could then revise their pre-review evaluations based on the panel discussion. Using a lens of transformative learning theory, this study sought to answer the following research questions: 1) What are the tacit criteria used to inform recommendations for grant proposal reviews among scholars new to the review process? 2) To what extent are there changes in these tacit criteria and subsequent recommendations for grant proposal reviews after participation in a mock panel review? Using a single case study approach to explore one mock review panel, we conducted document analyses of six mentees’ reviews completed before and after their participation in the mock review panel. Findings from this study suggest that reviewers primarily focus on the positive broader impacts proposed by a study and the level of detail within a submitted proposal. Although mentees made few changes to their reviews after the mock panel discussion, changes which were present illustrate that reviewers more deeply considered the broader impacts of the proposed studies. These results can inform review panel practices as well as approaches to training to support new reviewers in DBER fields.more » « less
-
This research paper study was situated within a peer review mentoring program in which novice reviewers were paired with mentors who are former National Science Foundation (NSF) program directors with experience running discipline-based education research (DBER) panels. Whether it be a manuscript or grant proposal, the outcome of peer review can greatly influence academic careers and the impact of research on a field. Yet the criteria upon which reviewers base their recommendations and the processes they follow as they review are poorly understood. Mentees reviewed three previously submitted proposals to the NSF and drafted pre-panel reviews regarding the proposals’ intellectual merit and broader impacts, strengths, and weaknesses relative to solicitation-specific criteria. After participation in one mock review panel, mentees could then revise their pre-review evaluations based on the panel discussion. Using a lens of transformative learning theory, this study sought to answer the following research questions: 1) What are the tacit criteria used to inform recommendations for grant proposal reviews among scholars new to the review process? 2) To what extent are there changes in these tacit criteria and subsequent recommendations for grant proposal reviews after participation in a mock panel review? Using a single case study approach to explore one mock review panel, we conducted document analyses of six mentees’ reviews completed before and after their participation in the mock review panel. Findings from this study suggest that reviewers primarily focus on the positive broader impacts proposed by a study and the level of detail within a submitted proposal. Although mentees made few changes to their reviews after the mock panel discussion, changes which were present illustrate that reviewers more deeply considered the broader impacts of the proposed studies. These results can inform review panel practices as well as approaches to training to support new reviewers in DBER fields.more » « less
-
Modern machine learning and computer science conferences are experiencing a surge in the number of submissions that challenges the quality of peer review as the number of competent reviewers is growing at a much slower rate. To curb this trend and reduce the burden on reviewers, several conferences have started encouraging or even requiring authors to declare the previous submission history of their papers. Such initiatives have been met with skepticism among authors, who raise the concern about a potential bias in reviewers' recommendations induced by this information. In this work, we investigate whether reviewers exhibit a bias caused by the knowledge that the submission under review was previously rejected at a similar venue, focusing on a population of novice reviewers who constitute a large fraction of the reviewer pool in leading machine learning and computer science conferences. We design and conduct a randomized controlled trial closely replicating the relevant components of the peer-review pipeline with $133$ reviewers (master's, junior PhD students, and recent graduates of top US universities) writing reviews for $19$ papers. The analysis reveals that reviewers indeed become negatively biased when they receive a signal about paper being a resubmission, giving almost 1 point lower overall score on a 10-point Likert item (Δ = -0.78, 95% CI = [-1.30, -0.24]) than reviewers who do not receive such a signal. Looking at specific criteria scores (originality, quality, clarity and significance), we observe that novice reviewers tend to underrate quality the most.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273994
