Abstract
PurposeThis study aimed to identify the characteristics of excellent peer reviewers by using Publons.com (an open and free online peer review website).Design/methodology/approachReviewers of the clinical medicine field on Publons were selected as the sample (n = 1,864). A logistic regression model was employed to examine the data.FindingsThe results revealed that reviewers' verified reviews, verified editor records, and whether they were the Publons mentors had significant and positive associations with excellent peer reviewers, while their research performance (including the number of articles indexed by Web of Science (WOS), citations, H-index and high-cited researcher), genders, words per review, number of current/past editorial boards, whether they had experiences of post-publication review on Publons and whether they were Publons academy graduates had no significant associations with excellent peer reviewers.Originality/valueThis study could help journals find excellent peer reviewers from free and open online platforms.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-11-2021-0604.
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Computer Science Applications,Information Systems
Reference61 articles.
1. Adewoyin, O., Araya, R. and Vassileva, J. (2016), “Peer review in mentorship: perception of the helpfulness of review and reciprocal ratings”, in Micarelli, A., Stamper, J. and Panourgia, K. (Eds), Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Springer, pp. 286-293.
2. Peer reviewers in central Asia: Publons based analysis;Journal of Korean Medical Science,2021
3. Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods;Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare,2016
4. Quantifying the quality of peer reviewers through Zipf's law;Scientometrics,2016
5. Innovative strategies for peer review;Journal of Korean Medical Science,2020
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献