Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: how far do comments differ in language use?
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Open peer review is proved to attract review comments of higher quality in terms of length, helpfulness, and good manners.
“Open peer review is proved to attract review comments of higher quality in terms of length, helpfulness, and good manners (Bornmann et al., 2012; Walsh et al., 2000).”
From MOPRD: A multidisciplinary open peer review dataset (2022) · cites this paper as Bornmann et al., 2012
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 49
- Authors
- Bornmann, L., Wolf, M., & Daniel, H.-D.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- University Hospital Heidelberg (DE)
- University of Zurich (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Bornmann, Lutz
- Venue
- Scientometrics
- Published
- 2011-12-10
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 843-856
- ISSN
- 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
- 1588-2861
- OpenAlex
- W2011129068
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 3.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Scientometrics (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- peer review comments, LIWC, emotional words, positive and negative emotions, Angewandte Chemie, scholarly publishing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
