Journal of the Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.82
-
pISSN : 1229-2435 / eISSN : 2799-4767
- https://journal.kci.go.kr/kbiblia
KJCKorea
Journal Central
A Study on the Peer Review Activity of Domestic Researchers in International Journals: Focused on Publons
- Journal of the Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science
- 2022, 33(1), pp.5~24
- DOI : 10.14699/kbiblia.2022.33.1.005
- Publisher : Journal Of The Korean Biblia Society For Library And Information Science
- Research Area : Interdisciplinary Studies > Library and Information Science
- Received : February 7, 2022
- Accepted : February 28, 2022
- Published : March 30, 2022
CHO JANE 1
1인천대학교
Accredited
ABSTRACT
As a new academic publication model is attempted to improve the transparency, efficiency, and speed of scientific knowledge production and distribution, the open peer review platform for verification and openness of peer review history is also activated. Publons is a global platform for tracking, validating, disclosing, and recognizing the peer-reviewed histories of more than 3 million researchers worldwide. This study analyzed the review activities of 579 researchers from domestic universities who are actively reviewing international journals through Publons. As a result of the analysis, first, researchers from domestic universities who actively review international academic journals were found to be in the fields of medicine and electrical and electronics, and in most fields, assistant professors or higher with high WOS indexed research papers are participating. Second, there was a long-tail phenomenon in which a small number of reviewers with extremely high number of review papers existed in all academic fields, and there was no significant difference in the number of review papers and review report length depending on the nationality, academic status, and age of the reviewers. Lastly, although there was a weak correlation between the amount of papers reviewed by reviewers and the number of published papers, it was found that researchers with an extremely large number of reviews do not necessarily produce as many research papers.
Statistics
-
491 Viewed
-
187 Downloaded
Tools
Issue List
Citation status
* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.
[journal]
Black, N.
/ 1998
/ What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?
/ Journal of the American Medical Association
280
: 231~233
[journal]
Bornmann, L.
/ 2008
/ Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review : a citation analysis of communications that were accepted by angewandte chemie international edition, or rejected but published elsewhere
/ Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
59(11)
: 1841~1852
[web]
Clarivate
/ 2018
/ It’s not the size that matters
/ https://clarivate.com/blog/its-not-the-size-that-matters/
[web]
Clarivate Analytics
/ 2020
/ Publons Reviewer Connect - ScholarOne
/ https://static1.squarespace.com/static/576fcda2e4fcb5ab5152b4d8/t/5e7dceb25ae8b93895717126/1585303221283/Reviewer+Connect+in+ScholarOne+QRG_Final.pdf
[web]
cOAlition S
/ 2019
/ Guidance on the Implementation of Plan S
/ https://www.coalition-s.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/271118_cOAlitionS_Guidance_annotated.pdf
[web]
Dunne, M.
/ 2019
/ Computer Generated Papers as a New Challenge to Peer Review. Master of Science in Technical Communication, Montana Tech
/ https://digitalcommons.mtech.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1205&context=grad_rsch
[journal]
Evans, A. T.
/ 1993
/ The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews
/ Journal of General Internal Medicine
8(8)
: 422~428
[journal]
Falkenberg, L. J.
/ 2018
/ Reviewing reviews : an evaluation of peer reviews of journal article submissions
/ Limnology and Oceanography Bulletin
27(1)
: 1~5
[journal]
Gasparyan, A. Y.
/ 2012
/ Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals
/ Croatian Medical Journal
53(4)
: 386~389
[journal]
Ketevan Glonti
/ 2019
/ Journal editors’ perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study
/ BMJ Open
/ BMJ
9(11)
: e033421~
[journal]
Scott Goldstein
/ 2019
/ Publons Peer Evaluation Metrics are not Reliable Measures of Quality or Impact
/ Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
/ University of Alberta Libraries
14(3)
: 153~155
[journal]
Kliewer, M. A.
/ 2005
/ Reviewing the reviewers : comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American journal of roentgenology
/ American Journal of Roentgenology
184(6)
: 1731~1735
[journal]
Ortega, J. L.
/ 2017
/ Are peer-review activities related to reviewer bibliometric performance? a scientometric analysis of publons
/ Scientometrics
112
: 947~962
[journal]
Ortega, J. L.
/ 2019
/ Exploratory analysis of publons metrics and their relationship with bibliometric and altmetric impact
/ Aslib Journal of Information Management
71(1)
: 124~136
[journal]
Michael S. Patterson
/ 2009
/ The relationship between reviewers’ quality-scores and number of citations for papers published in the journal Physics in Medicine and Biology from 2003–2005
/ Scientometrics
/ Springer Science and Business Media LLC
80(2)
: 343~349
[journal]
Marco Pautasso
/ 2009
/ Peer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals
/ Scientometrics
/ Springer Science and Business Media LLC
84(2)
: 307~315
[web]
Reilly, L.
/ 2021
/ What are Scored Publications?
/ Publons
/ https://publons.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/12000081238-what-are-scoredpublications
[journal]
Tony Ross-Hellauer
/ 2017
/ Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers
/ PLOS ONE
/ Public Library of Science (PLoS)
12(12)
: e0189311~
[journal]
Schriger, D. L.
/ 2016
/ Are reviewers’ scores influenced by citations to their own work? an analysis of submitted manuscripts and peer reviewer reports
/ Annuals of Emergency Medicine
67(3)
: 401~406
[journal]
Swiontkowski, M.
/ 2019
/ Publons : the next step in reviewer recognition
/ Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
101(13)
: 1137~
[journal]
Teixeira da Silva, J. A.
/ 2020
/ Are negative reviews, predatory reviewers or failed peer review rewarded at Publons?
/ International Orthopaedics(SICOT)
44
: 2193~2194
[journal]
Thomas, P. R.
/ 1998
/ Institutional research rankings via bibliometric analysis and direct peer review : a comparative case study with policy implications
/ Scientometrics
41(3)
: 335~355
[journal]
Ule, J.
/ 2020
/ Open access, open data and peer review
/ Genome Biol
21
: 86~
[journal]
Wiechert, K.
/ 2018
/ Recognizing our experts : global spine journal partners with publons to establish reviewers' platform
/ Global Spine Journal
8(3)
: 217~
[journal]
Wilkinson, J.
/ 2018
/ Publons : releasing the untapped power of peer review for universities
/ Insights
31
: 20~
[journal]
Wolfram, D.
/ 2020
/ Open peer review : promoting transparency in open science
/ Scientometrics
125
: 1033~1051
[journal]
Yankauer, A.
/ 1990
/ Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review?
/ Journal of the American Medical Association
263(10)
: 1338~1340
[journal]
Zong, Q.
/ 2020
/ The relationship of polarity of post-publication peer review to citation count : evidence from publons
/ Online Information Review
44(3)
: 583~602
[web]
佐藤, 翔
/ 2014
/ 査読をめぐる新たな問題. カレントアウェアネス, 321
/ https://current.ndl.go.jp/ca1829
[journal]
佐藤, 翔
/ 2016
/ 査読の抱える問題とその対応策
/ 情報の科学と技術
66(3)
: 115~121