Scholarlink

<p>Scientific journals often rely on informal methods to evaluate reviewers, such as editor ratings and author feedback. Reviewer self-assessment offers a promising, yet underexplored, approach to improving the peer-review process. This study examined the factors associated with reviewers’ self-assessments. We surveyed 642 reviewers and editors from three Information Systems (IS) conferences (January–February 2020), and 144 responses were analyzed using quantitative inferential statistics. Most respondents were male (72.2%) and based in Europe (59%). We found no significant association between self-assessment and conventional experience markers (reviewing and publishing experiences). In contrast, significant associations were observed between higher self-assessment and the perceived importance of feedback from editors (χ<sup>2</sup> = 19.689, <i>p</i> ≈ 0.002), feedback from authors (χ<sup>2</sup> = 25.168, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), and formal training (χ<sup>2</sup> = 14.64, <i>p</i> ≈ 0.047). Although our sample comes from IS settings, these mechanisms are process-based; therefore, these findings could be extended to a broader peer review ecosystem. Overall, organizational interventions, structured feedback from editors and authors, and formal training are more closely related to reviewers’ self-assessments than accumulated publishing or reviewing experience.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Exploring reviewer self-assessment in the context of academic peer review

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月4日

查看全文
  • Amanda Sizo,
  • Alexandra Oliveira,
  • Adriano Lino,
  • Álvaro Rocha,
  • Luís Paulo Reis

摘要

Scientific journals often rely on informal methods to evaluate reviewers, such as editor ratings and author feedback. Reviewer self-assessment offers a promising, yet underexplored, approach to improving the peer-review process. This study examined the factors associated with reviewers’ self-assessments. We surveyed 642 reviewers and editors from three Information Systems (IS) conferences (January–February 2020), and 144 responses were analyzed using quantitative inferential statistics. Most respondents were male (72.2%) and based in Europe (59%). We found no significant association between self-assessment and conventional experience markers (reviewing and publishing experiences). In contrast, significant associations were observed between higher self-assessment and the perceived importance of feedback from editors (χ2 = 19.689, p ≈ 0.002), feedback from authors (χ2 = 25.168, p < 0.001), and formal training (χ2 = 14.64, p ≈ 0.047). Although our sample comes from IS settings, these mechanisms are process-based; therefore, these findings could be extended to a broader peer review ecosystem. Overall, organizational interventions, structured feedback from editors and authors, and formal training are more closely related to reviewers’ self-assessments than accumulated publishing or reviewing experience.