Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers (Papers: Danielle B. Rice, et al | February 2022)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Research Integrity on March 25, 2022
Keywords: Culture, Good practice, Human research ethics, Institutional responsibilities, Peer review, Publication ethics, Research integrity, Research results, Researcher responsibilities

The Linked Original Item was Posted On February, 21 2022

Review Time words Concept man hand on table Business, coffee, Split tone

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.

We have observed before, there are tangible benefits from conducting peer reviews.  This open access paper (published in February 2022) reports about publications and citations performance. Rather than being a distraction from our own research and writing, peer review improves our own practice.  Of course, it would be good if journals paid reviewers ($450).  There should also be recognition nationally.  It would be beneficial if at the institutional level there was some form of tracking and celebration of peer reviews.  We have included links to five related items.

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 (92%) as compared to the control reviewers (70% 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 < .001). We found no statistically significant differences in the number of words between the groups (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.

Rice, D.B., Pham, B., Presseau, JA., Tricco, C. & Moher, D. (2022) Characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers. Research Integrity and Peer Review 7(1) (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-022-00121-1
Publisher (Open Access): https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-022-00121-1

Characteristics of ‘mega’ peer-reviewers - Research Integrity and Peer Review
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…

Related Reading

Peer review will only improve if journals’ decisions are audited – Times Higher Education (Arfan Ghani | February 2022)

It is time to start paying peer reviewers – Times Higher Education (Adrian Furnham | October 2021)

Don’t make early career researchers ‘ghost authors.’ Give us the credit we deserve – Science (Karishma Bisht | September 2021)

Can AI be used ethically to assist peer review? – LSE Impact Blog (Alessandro Checco | May 2021)

The $450 question: Should journals pay peer reviewers? – Science (Jeffrey Brainard | March 2021)

‘Conference organizers have ignored this:’ How common is plagiarism and duplication in abstracts? – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | February 2021)

Building trust in peer review: A Q&A with Dr Mario Malički – BMC Blog Network (Suzuki Limbu | September 2020)

On Clarifying the Goals of a Peer Review Taxonomy – Scholarly Kitchen (Micah Altman & Philip N. Cohenoct | October 2020)

Don’t be a prig in peer review

‘An isolated incident’: Should reviewers check references? – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | September 2020)

Revisiting: The Problem(s) With Credit for Peer Review – Scholarly Kitchen (David Crotty | August 2020)

Five better ways to assess science – Nature Index (Benjamin Plackett | August 2020)

Opinion: Exorcising Ghostwriting from Peer Review – TheScientist (James L. Sherley | January 2020)

Rude paper reviews are pervasive and sometimes harmful, study find – Science (Christie Wilcox | December 2019)

How to Be A Good Peer Reviewer – Scholarly Kitchen (Jasmine Wallace | September 2019)

Q&A Linda Beaumont: Journals should take action against toxic peer reviews – Nature Index (Gemma Conroy | August 2019)

Junior researchers are losing out by ghostwriting peer reviews – Nature (Virginia Gewin | May 2019)

Peer-review experiments tracked in online repository – Nature (Richard Van Noorden | March 2019)

Rare trial of open peer review allays common concerns – Nature (Dalmeet Singh Chawla | February 2019)

A Beginner’s Guide to the Peer Review System – GradHacker (Carolyn Trietsch | January 2019)

AI peer reviewers unleashed to ease publishing grind – Science (Douglas Heaven | November 2018)

Kinder Peer Review – Scientists Are Humans (Dr Rebecca Kirk | November 2018)

How Do We Move Towards Better Peer Review? – The Wiley Network (Elizabeth Moylan | September 2018)

Can Peer Review Be Saved? – Chronicle of Higher Education (Paul Basken | March 2018)

Peer Review – Authors and Reviewers – our “North Star” – Scholarly Kitchen (Robert Harington | May 2018)

Advocating for publishing peer review – ASAbio (Iain Cheeseman | April 2018)

Journals Peer Review: Past, Present, Future – Scholarly Kitchen (Alice Meadows | September 2017)

How to be a great reviewer for a research paper – Crosslink (Milka Kostic | August 2017)

Reviewing review articles, part 2: The how – CrossTalk (Matt Pavlovich | August 2017)

Reviewing review articles, part 1: The who and why – CrossTalk (Matt Pavlovich | July 2017)

Ask The Chefs: Should Peer Review Change? – Scholarly Kitchen (Ann Michael | September 2017)

How fake peer review happens: An impersonated reviewer speaks – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | November 2016)

Standing up for peer review – CrossTALK (Emilie Marcus: September 2016)

Peer review: the benefits of leaving it open – Biomed Central Blog (Francesca Martin: September 2016)

A fascinating experiment into measuring dishonesty: Is peer review a major determent in keeping science honest? – Elsevier Connect (Dan Ariely and Yael Melamede: September 2016)

Robot-Written Peer Reviews – Inside Higher Ed (Jack Grove September 2016)

Ask The Chefs: What Is The Future Of Peer Review? – The Scholarly Kitchen (Ann Michael September 2016)

Related Links

  • About the contributors
  • About the keywords
  • Suggest a resource
  • Report problem/broken link
  • Request a Take Down

Compiled here are links, downloads and other resources relating to research integrity and human research ethics. more…

Resources Menu

Four hands solving a jigsaw against the sun blazing out of a cloudy sky

Research Integrity

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books
  • Animal Ethics

Human Research Ethics

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in