Michelle Dawson posts

Post published on Twitter/X on 22 Feb 2022 05:38

Twitter/X DOI work crossref Extract quoted in the post Question asked by Dawson in the post External link integrated into the post

Structured cited links

1 cited resource

DOI work Fetched Post crossref

Danielle B. Rice, Ba’ Pham, Justin Presseau, Andrea C. Tricco, David Moher (2022). Characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 7(1), 1. Springer Science and Business Media LLC.

Publication date
21 Feb 2022
Identifier
10.1186/s41073-022-00121-1
Authors
Danielle B. Rice, Ba’ Pham, Justin Presseau, Andrea C. Tricco, David Moher
Source
Research Integrity and Peer Review
Details
7(1), 1
Reference type
article
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Metadata source
crossref

Abstract

Abstract 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 (74%) as compared to the control reviewers (58% 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.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.

Study authors in this cited reference