Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969-2015)

This paper examines research on peer review between 1969 and 2015 by looking at records indexed from the Scopus database. Although it is often argued that peer review has been poorly investigated, we found that the number of publications in this field doubled from 2005. A half of this work was index...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one Jg. 13; H. 2; S. e0193148
Hauptverfasser: Grimaldo, Francisco, Marušić, Ana, Squazzoni, Flaminio
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: United States Public Library of Science 21.02.2018
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Schlagworte:
Abstracting and Indexing - history
Abstracting and Indexing - methods
Analysis
Animals
Authoring
Citation analysis
Cocitation
Collaboration
Computer and Information Sciences
Data Mining - history
Data Mining - methods
Databases, Bibliographic
Documents
Fragmentation
History, 20th Century
History, 21st Century
Humans
Knowledge management
Literature
Literature reviews
Network analysis
Peer review
Peer Review - methods
People and Places
Publishing
Quantitative analysis
Research and Analysis Methods
Research projects
Reviews
Science Policy
Scientometrics
Studies
Systematic review
Trends
United Kingdom > UK
ISSN:1932-6203, 1932-6203
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This paper examines research on peer review between 1969 and 2015 by looking at records indexed from the Scopus database. Although it is often argued that peer review has been poorly investigated, we found that the number of publications in this field doubled from 2005. A half of this work was indexed as research articles, a third as editorial notes and literature reviews and the rest were book chapters or letters. We identified the most prolific and influential scholars, the most cited publications and the most important journals in the field. Co-authorship network analysis showed that research on peer review is fragmented, with the largest group of co-authors including only 2.1% of the whole community. Co-citation network analysis indicated a fragmented structure also in terms of knowledge. This shows that despite its central role in research, peer review has been examined only through small-scale research projects. Our findings would suggest that there is need to encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing across different research communities.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0193148