CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2scientometrics and bibliometrics researchPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Do conspicuous manuscripts experience shorter time in the duration of peer review?

Open access
Zhang, Guangyao, Shang, Furong, Xie, Weixi, Guo, Yuhan, Jiang, Chunlin, Wang, Xianwen·2021·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2112.09360arXiv 2112.09360
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A question often asked by authors is how long would it take for the peer review process. Peer review duration has been concerned much by authors and attracted much attention in academia these years. Existing research on this field focuses primarily on a single quantitative dimension. Seldom studies considered that peer review duration is closely related to the attractiveness of manuscripts. This study aims to fill this research gap employing attention economy theory. By analyzing the peer review history from the British Medical Journal (BMJ), we find that a significant negative relationship exists between the peer review duration and altmetric attention score (AAs). Overall, our study contributes to understanding peer review behavior from a new perspective and bridging the divide between peer reviews and altmetrics.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2112.09360

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Paper review is typically unpaid and time-consuming, and altruism fatigue often results in reduced commitment and superficial assessments.

    “Paper review is typically unpaid and timeconsuming (Zhang et al., 2021), requiring substantial time investment beyond reviewers' regular professional duties.This demanding nature, coupled with altruism fatigue-where reviewers feel their voluntary efforts are unrecognized-often results in reduced commitment and superficial assessments.”

    From AgentReview: Exploring Peer Review Dynamics with LLM Agents (2024) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2021

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 78

  1. - 2021 American Medical Association. (2021). Altmetrics on The JAMA Network . The JAMA Network. https://sites.jamanetwork.com/altmetric/
  2. Andersen, J. P., & Haustein, S. (2015). Influence of Study Type on Twitter Activity for Medical Research Papers. In A. A. Salah, Y. Tonta, A. a. A. Salah, C. Sugimoto, & U. Al (Eds.), Proceedings of Issi 2015 Istanbul: 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference (pp. 26-36). Int Soc Scientometrics & Informetrics-Issi.
  3. Araujo, A. C., Vanin, A. A., Nascimento, D. P., Gonzalez, G. Z., & Costa, L. O. P. (2021). What are the variables associated with Altmetric scores? Systematic Reviews , 10 (1), 193. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01735-0 · DOI
  4. Azar, O. H. (2007). The slowdown in first-response times of economics journals: Can it be beneficial? Economic Inquiry , 45 (1), 179-187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2006.00032.x · DOI
  5. Barnes, C. (2015). The Use of Altmetrics as a Tool for Measuring Research Impact. Australian Academic & Research Libraries , 46 (2), 121-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2014.1003174 · DOI
  6. Barnett, A., Mewburn, I., & Schroter, S. (2019). Working 9 to 5, not the way to make an academic living: Observational analysis of manuscript and peer review submissions over time. British Medical Journal , l6460. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6460 · DOI
  7. Bernstein, J. (2013). Free for Service: The Inadequate Incentives for Quality Peer Review. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research , 471 (10), 3093-3097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3216-z · DOI
  8. Bianchi, F., Grimaldo, F., Bravo, G., & Squazzoni, F. (2018). The peer review game: An agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures. Scientometrics , 116 (3), 1401-1420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192018-2825-4 · DOI
  9. Bilalli, B., Munir, R. F., & Abelló, A. (2020). A framework for assessing the peer review duration of journals: Case study in computer science. Scientometrics , 126 (1), 545563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03742-9 · DOI
  10. Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology , 45 (1), 197-245. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Bornmann, L. (2014a). Is there currently a scientific revolution in Scientometrics? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 65 (3), 647648. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23073 · DOI
  12. Bornmann, L. (2014b). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics , 8 (4), 895-903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.005 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Bornmann, L. (2015). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics , 103 (3), 1123-1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1565-y · DOI · Paper page
  14. Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R., & Adams, J. (2019). Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF). Journal of Informetrics , 13 (1), 325-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.01.008 · DOI
  15. Brigham, T. J. (2014). An Introduction to Altmetrics. Medical Reference Services Quarterly , 33 (4), 438-447. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2014.957093 · DOI
  16. Cabanac, G., & Hartley, J. (2013). Issues of work-life balance among JASIST authors and editors: Work-Life Balance Issues Among JASIST Authors and Editors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 64 (10), 2182-2186. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22888 · DOI
  17. Cabezas Del Fierro, P., Sabaj Meruane, O., Varas Espinoza, G., & Gonzalez Herrera, V. (2018). Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long. Transinformacao , 30 (2), 209-218. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-08892018000200006 · DOI
  18. Campos-Arceiz, A., Koh, L. P., & Primack, R. B. (2013). Are conservation biologists working too hard? Biological Conservation , 166 , 186-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.06.029 · DOI
  19. Card, D., DellaVigna, S., Funk, P., & Iriberri, N. (2020). Are Referees and Editors in Economics Gender Neutral? The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 135 (1), 269327. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz035 · DOI
  20. Casnici, N., Grimaldo, F., Gilbert, N., Dondio, P., & Squazzoni, F. (2017). Assessing peer review by gauging the fate of rejected manuscripts: The case of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. Scientometrics , 113 (1), 533-546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2241-1 · DOI
  21. Casnici, N., Grimaldo, F., Gilbert, N., & Squazzoni, F. (2017). Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 68 (7), 1763-1771. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23665 · DOI
  22. Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Leth-Petersen, S., Nielsen, T. H., & Olsen, T. (2014). Active vs. Passive Decisions and Crowd-Out in Retirement Savings Accounts: Evidence from Denmark. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 129 (3), 1141-1219. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju013 · DOI
  23. Delli, K., Livas, C., Spijkervet, F. K. L., & Vissink, A. (2017). Measuring the social impact of dental research: An insight into the most influential articles on the Web. Oral Diseases , 23 (8), 1155-1161. https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.12714 · DOI
  24. Docherty, A. B., & Klein, A. A. (2017). The fate of manuscripts rejected from Anaesthesia. Anaesthesia , 72 (4), 427-430. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.13829 · DOI
  25. Engers, M., & Gans, J. S. (1998). Why Referees Are Not Paid (Enough). The American Economic Review , 88 (5), 1341-1349.
  26. Falkinger, J. (2007). Attention economies. Journal of Economic Theory , 133 (1), 266294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2005.12.001 · DOI
  27. Garcia, J. A., Rodriguez-Sánchez, R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2019). The optimal amount of information to provide in an academic manuscript. Scientometrics , 121 (3), 1685-1705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03270-1 · DOI
  28. Gasparyan, A. Y., Gerasimov, A. N., Voronov, A. A., & Kitas, G. D. (2015). Rewarding Peer Reviewers: Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication. Journal of Korean Medical Science , 30 (4), 360-364. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360 · DOI
  29. Groves, T., & Loder, E. (2014). Prepublication histories and open peer review at The BMJ. BMJ , 349 . https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g5394 · DOI
  30. Hassona, Y., Qutachi, T., Dardas, L., Alrashdan, M. S., & Sawair, F. (2019). The online attention to oral cancer research: An Altmetric analysis. Oral Diseases , 25 (6), 1502-1510. https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.13111 · DOI
  31. Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Lariviere, V. (2015). Characterizing Social Media Metrics of Scholarly Papers: The Effect of Document Properties and Collaboration Patterns. Plos One , 10 (3), e0120495. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120495 · DOI
  32. Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C., & Meckel, M. (2016). A relational altmetric? Network centrality on ResearchGate as an indicator of scientific impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 67 (4), 765-775. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23423 · DOI
  33. Huberman, B. A. (2013). Social Computing and the Attention Economy. Journal of Statistical Physics , 151 (1-2), 329-339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10955-012-05965 · DOI
  34. Huisman, J., & Smits, J. (2017). Duration and quality of the peer review process: The author's perspective. Scientometrics , 113 (1), 633-650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Hünermund, P., & Louw, B. (2020). On the Nuisance of Control Variables in Regression Analysis. ArXiv:2005.10314 [Econ] . http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10314 · arXiv
  36. Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., & Adeli, K. (2014). Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. EJIFCC , 25 (3), 227-243.
  37. Khazragui, H., & Hudson, J. (2015). Measuring the benefits of university research: Impact and the REF in the UK. Research Evaluation , 24 (1), 51-62. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu028 · DOI
  38. Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P., & Trinquart, L. (2016). The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise. PLOS ONE , 11 (11), e0166387. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166387 · DOI
  39. Lazer, D. M. J., Pentland, A., Watts, D. J., Aral, S., Athey, S., Contractor, N., Freelon, D., Gonzalez-Bailon, S., King, G., Margetts, H., Nelson, A., Salganik, M. J., Strohmaier, M., Vespignani, A., & Wagner, C. (2020). Computational social science: Obstacles and opportunities. Science , 369 (6507), 1060-1062. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz8170 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabási, A.-L., Brewer, D., Christakis, N., Contractor, N., Fowler, J., Gutmann, M., Jebara, T., King, G., Macy, M., Roy, D., & Alstyne, M. V. (2009). Computational Social Science. Science , 323 (5915), 721-723. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167742 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Li, D., & Agha, L. (2015). Big names or big ideas: Do peer-review panels select the best science proposals? Science , 348 (6233), 434-438. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa0185 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Liang, K.-Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1995). Inference Based on Estimating Functions in the Presence of Nuisance Parameters. Statistical Science , 10 (2), 158-173. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177010028 · DOI
  43. Moed, H. F. (2017). Applied Evaluative Informetrics . Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60522-7 · DOI
  44. Moizer, P. (2009). Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game? Accounting Organizations and Society , 34 (2), 285-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2008.08.003 · DOI
  45. Mrowinski, M. J., Fronczak, A., Fronczak, P., Nedic, O., & Ausloos, M. (2016). Review time in peer review: Quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows. Scientometrics , 107 (1), 271-286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1871-z · DOI
  46. Onodera, N., & Yoshikane, F. (2015). Factors affecting citation rates of research articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 66 (4), 739764. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23209 · DOI
  47. Pautasso, M., & Schäfer, H. (2010). Peer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals. Scientometrics , 84 (2), 307-315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-0090105-z · DOI
  48. Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. H. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday . https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i7.2874 · DOI
  49. Publons. (2018b). Publons' Global State Of Peer Review 2018 . Publons. https://doi.org/10.14322/publons.GSPR2018 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Ramos, H. M., Mustafa, M., Primack, R., & Campos-Arceiz, A. (2017). What do conservation biologists think about their job and working conditions? Biological Conservation , 211 , 183-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.033 · DOI
  51. Righi, S., & Takacs, K. (2017). The miracle of peer review and development in science: An agent-based model. Scientometrics , 113 (1), 587-607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2244-y · DOI
  52. Roetzel, P. G. (2019). Information overload in the information age: A review of the literature from business administration, business psychology, and related disciplines with a bibliometric approach and framework development. Business
  53. Rui, H., & Whinston, A. (2012). Information or attention? An empirical study of user contribution on Twitter. Information Systems and E-Business Management , 10 (3), 309-324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-011-0164-6 · DOI
  54. Serra-Garcia, M., & Gneezy, U. (2021). Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones. Science Advances , 7 (21), eabd1705. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd1705 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Shideler, G. S., & Araújo, R. J. (2017). Reviewer interest in a manuscript may predict its future citation potential. Scientometrics , 113 (2), 1171-1176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2492-x · DOI
  56. Sikdar, S., Marsili, M., Ganguly, N., & Mukherjee, A. (2017). Influence of Reviewer Interaction Network on Long-Term Citations: A Case Study of the Scientific PeerReview System of the Journal of High Energy Physics. 2017 ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL) , 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1109/JCDL.2017.7991572 · DOI
  57. Siler, K., Lee, K., & Bero, L. (2015). Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 112 (2), 360-365. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418218112 · DOI
  58. Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G., & Takacs, K. (2013). Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study. Research Policy , 42 (1), 287-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.014 · DOI
  59. Starbuck, E., & Purtee, S. (2017). Altmetric scores: Short-term popularity or long-term scientific importance. Digital Library Perspectives , 33 (4), 314-323. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-01-2017-0005 · DOI
  60. Tahamtan, I., Afshar, A. S., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics , 107 (3), 11951225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1889-2 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2020). Altmetrics and societal impact measurements: Match or mismatch? A literature review. Profesional De La Informacion , 29 (1), e290102. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.02 · DOI
  62. Tang, L., Shapira, P., & Youtie, J. (2015). Is There a Clubbing Effect Underlying Chinese Research Citation Increases? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 66 (9), 1923-1932. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23302 · DOI
  63. Thelwall, M. (2020). Measuring societal impacts of research with altmetrics? Common problems and mistakes. Journal of Economic Surveys , joes.12381. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12381 · DOI
  64. Tite, L., & Schroter, S. (2007). Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health , 61 (1), 9-12. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2006.049817 · DOI
  65. Wang, X., Fang, Z., & Guo, X. (2016). Tracking the digital footprints to scholarly articles from social media. Scientometrics , 109 (2), 1365-1376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2086-z · DOI
  66. Wang, X., Fang, Z., Li, Q., & Guo, X. (2016). The Poor Altmetric Performance of Publications Authored by Researchers in Mainland China. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics , 1 . https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2016.00008 · DOI
  67. Wang, X., Peng, L., Zhang, C., Xu, S., Wang, Z., Wang, C., & Wang, X. (2013). Exploring scientists' working timetable: A global survey. Journal of Informetrics , 7 (3), 665-675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.04.003 · DOI
  68. Ware, M., & Mabe, M. (2015). The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing fourth edition (United States of America, Europe, United Kingdom, China) [Report]. International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers. https://apo.org.au/node/57525
  69. Wei, C., Allais, B., Tornberg, H. N., Quan, T., Adusumilli, N. C., Patel, V . A., & Friedman, A. J. (2021). The utilization of the Altmetric and PlumX scores in evaluating the top 100 trending melanoma articles in social media. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2020.12.067 · DOI
  70. Wolfram, D., Wang, P., & Abuzahra, F. (2021). An exploration of referees' comments published in open peer review journals: The characteristics of review language and the association between review scrutiny and citations. Research Evaluation , rvab005 . https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab005 · DOI
  71. Wooldridge, J., & King, M. B. (2019). Altmetric scores: An early indicator of research impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 70 (3), 271-282. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24122 · DOI
  72. Xia, F., Su, X., Wang, W., Zhang, C., Ning, Z., & Lee, I. (2016). Bibliographic Analysis of Nature Based on Twitter and Facebook Altmetrics Data. PLOS ONE , 11 (12), e0165997. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165997 · DOI
  73. Xu, S., An, M., & An, X. (2021). Do scientific publications by editorial board members have shorter publication delays and then higher influence? Scientometrics , 126 (8), 6697-6713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04067-x · DOI
  74. Zhang, G., Wang, L., Xie, W., Shang, F., xia, X., Jiang, C., & Wang, X. (2022). 'This article is interesting, however': Exploring the language use in peer review comment of articles published in the BMJ. Aslib Journal of Information Management , In Press . https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-06-2021-0172 · DOI
  75. Zhang, G., Wang, Y., Xie, W., Du, H., Jiang, C., & Wang, X. (2021). The open access usage advantage: A temporal and spatial analysis. Scientometrics , 126 (7), 61876199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03836-4 · DOI
  76. Zhou, J. Z., Lemelman, B. T., Done, N., Henderson, M. L., Macmillan, A., Song, D. H., & Dorafshar, A. H. (2018). Social Media and the Dissemination of Research: Insights from the Most Widely Circulated Articles in Plastic Surgery. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery , 142 (2), 555-561. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004598 · DOI
  77. Zhu, H. (2021). Home country bias in academic publishing: A case study of the New England Journal of Medicine. Learned Publishing . https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1404 · DOI
  78. Zoccali, C., Amodeo, D., Argiles, A., Arici, M., D'arrigo, G., Evenepoel, P., Fliser, D., Fox, J., Gesualdo, L., Jadoul, M., Ketteler, M., Malyszko, J., Massy, Z., Mayer, G., Ortiz, A., Sever, M., Vanholder, R., Vinck, C., Wanner, C., & Wiecek, A. (2015). The fate of triaged and rejected manuscripts. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation , 30 (12), 1947-1950. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfv387 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, G., Shang, F., Xie, W., Guo, Y., Jiang, C., & Wang, X.
Affiliations
  • Dalian University of Technology (CN)
  • Shandong Normal University (CN)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2112.09360
arXiv
2112.09360
OpenAlex
W4226356778
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (71974029, 71673038)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
Altmetric Attention Score, British Medical Journal, scholarly communication, altmetrics

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