Are reviewer scores consistent with citations?

Weixi Xie, Pengfei Jia, Guangyao Zhang and Xianwen Wang ()
Additional contact information
Weixi Xie: Dalian University of Technology
Pengfei Jia: Dalian University of Technology
Guangyao Zhang: Dalian University of Technology
Xianwen Wang: Dalian University of Technology

Scientometrics, 2024, vol. 129, issue 8, No 3, 4740 pages

Abstract: Abstract Academic evaluation is a critical component of research, with the interaction between quantitative and qualitative assessments becoming a prominent area of focus. This study examines the relationship between peer review scores and citations within the framework of open peer review. Utilizing data from the OpenReview platform for papers presented at the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), the papers were classified into oral presentations, poster presentations, and rejected manuscripts. Weighted scores were calculated using the confidence score method, followed by an analysis using correlation and regression techniques. The findings reveal significant differences among the three categories in terms of review scores and citations, demonstrating a positive correlation between review scores and citations. Additionally, it was found that papers with greater inconsistency in reviews tended to receive higher citations. Reviewers of rejected papers displayed significantly higher confidence in their assessments compared to reviewers of accepted papers. The results highlight the alignment between peer review and traditional bibliometric indicators in the context of open peer review. However, the degree of concordance between the two evaluation methods is not substantial, suggesting that they are not interchangeable. Therefore, traditional bibliometric indicators should be considered an essential complement to peer review. Furthermore, when evaluating the consistency between quantitative and qualitative assessments and the confidence levels of reviewers, peer review demonstrates greater effectiveness than “traditional peer review” in addressing issues of “poor selection”.

Keywords: Reviewer score; ICLR; OpenReview; Citation; Open peer review (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05103-2 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

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:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05103-2

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11192

DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05103-2

Access Statistics for this article

Scientometrics is currently edited by Wolfgang Glänzel

More articles in Scientometrics from Springer, Akadémiai Kiadó
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().