Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective

Ivana Drvenica, Giangiacomo Bravo, Lucija Vejmelka, Aleksandar Dekanski and Olgica Nedić
Additional contact information
Ivana Drvenica: Institute for Medical Research, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
Giangiacomo Bravo: Department of Social Studies, Centre for Data Intensive Sciences and Applications, Linnaeus University, 35195 Växjö, Sweden
Lucija Vejmelka: Department of Social Work, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Aleksandar Dekanski: Department of Electrochemistry, Institute of Chemistry, Technology and Metallurgy, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
Olgica Nedić: Institute for the Application of Nuclear Energy (INEP), University of Belgrade, 11080 Belgrade, Serbia

Publications, 2018, vol. 7, issue 1, 1-10

Abstract: The aim of this study was to investigate the opinion of authors on the overall quality and effectiveness of reviewers’ contributions to reviewed papers. We employed an on-line survey of thirteen journals which publish articles in the field of life, social or technological sciences. Responses received from 193 authors were analysed using a mixed-effects model in order to determine factors deemed the most important in the authors’ evaluation of the reviewers. Qualitative content analysis of the responses to open questions was performed as well. The mixed-effects model revealed that the authors’ assessment of the competence of referees strongly depended on the final editorial decision and that the speed of the review process was influential as well. In Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) analysis on seven questions detailing authors’ opinions, perception of review speed remained a significant predictor of the assessment. In addition, both the perceived competence and helpfulness of the reviewers significantly and positively affected the authors’ evaluation. New models were used to re-check the value of these two factors and it was confirmed that the assessment of the competence of reviewers strongly depended on the final editorial decision.

Keywords: reviewers’ reports; authors’ opinion; on-line survey; mixed-effect model; content analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: A2 D83 L82 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/1/1/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/1/1/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:7:y:2018:i:1:p:1-:d:192809

Access Statistics for this article

Publications is currently edited by Ms. Jennifer Zhang

More articles in Publications from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().