Large-scale language analysis of peer review reports.

linguistic analysis meta-research none peer review scientific publishing sentiment analysis

Journal

eLife
ISSN: 2050-084X
Titre abrégé: Elife
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101579614

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
17 07 2020
Historique:
received: 01 11 2019
accepted: 16 07 2020
pubmed: 18 7 2020
medline: 13 2 2021
entrez: 18 7 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Peer review is often criticized for being flawed, subjective and biased, but research into peer review has been hindered by a lack of access to peer review reports. Here we report the results of a study in which text-analysis software was used to determine the linguistic characteristics of 472,449 peer review reports. A range of characteristics (including analytical tone, authenticity, clout, three measures of sentiment, and morality) were studied as a function of reviewer recommendation, area of research, type of peer review and reviewer gender. We found that reviewer recommendation had the biggest impact on the linguistic characteristics of reports, and that area of research, type of peer review and reviewer gender had little or no impact. The lack of influence of research area, type of review or reviewer gender on the linguistic characteristics is a sign of the robustness of peer review.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32678065
doi: 10.7554/eLife.53249
pii: 53249
pmc: PMC7390598
doi:
pii:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Subventions

Organisme : Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, the Spanish State Research Agency and the European Regional Development Fund
ID : RTI2018-095820-B-I00
Pays : International
Organisme : Croatian Science Foundation
ID : IP-2019-04-4882
Pays : International
Organisme : Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
ID : RTI2018-095820-B-I00
Pays : International
Organisme : Spanish Agencia Estatal de Investigación
ID : RTI2018-095820-B-I00
Pays : International
Organisme : European Regional Development Fund
ID : RTI2018-095820-B-I00
Pays : International

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

© 2020, Buljan et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

IB, DG, FG, FS, AM No competing interests declared

Références

Mayo Clin Proc. 2019 Apr;94(4):670-676
pubmed: 30797567
Scientometrics. 2018;117(1):313-329
pubmed: 30220747
Nature. 2020 Feb;578(7796):512-514
pubmed: 32099126
Nature. 2017 Jun 14;546(7658):352
pubmed: 28617464
Nat Commun. 2019 Jan 18;10(1):322
pubmed: 30659186
Sci Eng Ethics. 2016 Feb;22(1):169-88
pubmed: 25633924
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009 May;96(5):1029-46
pubmed: 19379034
BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):23-7
pubmed: 9872878
PLoS One. 2018 Feb 21;13(2):e0193148
pubmed: 29466467
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Apr 17;115(16):E3635-E3644
pubmed: 29615513
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Apr 5;19(1):75
pubmed: 30953453
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2017 May;26(5):560-570
pubmed: 28281870

Auteurs

Ivan Buljan (I)

Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.

Daniel Garcia-Costa (D)

Department d'Informàtica, University of Valencia, Burjassot-València, Spain.

Francisco Grimaldo (F)

Department d'Informàtica, University of Valencia, Burjassot-València, Spain.

Flaminio Squazzoni (F)

Department of Social and Political Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.

Ana Marušić (A)

Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.

Articles similaires

Classifications MeSH