Mapping the bid behavior of conference referees

Marko A. Rodriguez, Johan Bollen and Herbert Van de Sompel

Journal of Informetrics, 2007, vol. 1, issue 1, 68-82

Abstract: The peer-review process, in its present form, has been repeatedly criticized. Of the many critiques ranging from publication delays to referee bias, this paper will focus specifically on the issue of how submitted manuscripts are distributed to qualified referees. Unqualified referees, without the proper knowledge of a manuscript’s domain, may reject a perfectly valid study or potentially more damaging, unknowingly accept a faulty or fraudulent result. In this paper, referee competence is analyzed with respect to referee bid data collected from the 2005 Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL). The analysis of the referee bid behavior provides a validation of the intuition that referees are bidding on conference submissions with regards to the subject domain of the submission. Unfortunately, this relationship is not strong and therefore suggests that there may potentially exists other factors beyond subject domain that may be influencing referees to bid for particular submissions.

Keywords: Peer-review; Referees; Bid behavior (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2007
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157706000101
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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:eee:infome:v:1:y:2007:i:1:p:68-82

DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2006.09.006

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Informetrics is currently edited by Leo Egghe

More articles in Journal of Informetrics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().