高质量的审稿意见与审稿人个体特征的关系——基于对Publons Top Reviewers的实证分析

【目的】 探讨高质量的审稿意见与审稿人个体特征的关系,为科技期刊选择合适的审稿人提供参考。 【方法】 以Publons平台中2018年和2019年Top Reviewers相关信息为数据源,采用标准负二项回归检验高质量审稿意见与审稿人个体特征间的关系。【结果】 经认证的审稿数、编辑经历、出版后同行评议经历与高质量审稿意见的数量有着显著的、稳定的正相关关系。是否为高被引科学家、是否为Publons导师、论文发表数量、是否在任期刊编委会成员、是否曾任编委会成员、未经认证的审稿数与高质量的审稿意见没有稳定的或者没有显著的关系。【结论】 科技期刊可以通过Publons等开放性的同行评议平台,邀请那些审稿数量多、有编辑经历,以及有过出版后同行评议经历的审稿人参与审稿,以提高审稿质量。

Relationship between high-quality peer reviews and individual characteristics of reviewers: An empirical study of Publons top reviewers

[Purposes] This study aims to provide implications for scientific journals to select appropriate reviewers by analyzing the relationship between high-quality peer reviews and reviewers' characteristics. [Methods] Based on the data sets of Publons top reviewers in 2018 and 2019, standard negative binomial regression was adopted to examine the relationship between high-quality peer reviews and individual characteristics of reviewers. [Findings] The results showed that the number of verified reviews, experience in journal editing, and experience in post-publication peer review were in stable and significant correlation with the number of high-quality peer reviews, and the identity of highly cited researcher, Publons mentor, number of published papers, member of editorial board of journals, former member of editorial board of journals, and number of unverified reviews had insignificant or unstable correlation with the number of high-quality peer reviews. [Conclusions] To improve the quality of peer review, scientific journals can invite reviewers (via open peer review platforms such as Publons) with a large number of peer reviews, experience in journal editing, and experience in post-publication peer review for peer review.