Year: 2018
Type: article
Abstract: Publication is the key means by which science is disseminated, with evaluation by journal editors and peer reviewers an important component of the scientific process. Peer reviews are, however, a typically occluded genre of documents not publicly available. Consequently, relatively little is known about peer reviews, including what makes them relevant to editors who are assessing submitted manuscripts. Here we aim to address this knowledge gap by answering the questions: (1) Does reviewer and editor (dis)agreement on the manuscript decision (i.e., accept, minor revision, major revision, reject) relate to how editors assess overall review quality? and, (2) What are the characteristics of review text that distinguish high quality reviews from lower quality reviews for editors? We analyzed 49 reviews of 26 manuscript submissions to Limnology and Oceanography: Letters. We found editor perception of review quality was based on review content rather than if there was agreement on the manuscript decision. Specifically, reviews
DOI: 10.1002/lob.10200
Language: English
Subfield: History and Philosophy of Science
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $3,200
Awards: Collaborative Research: The Response of Continental Hydrothermal Systems to Tectonic, Magmatic, and Climatic Forcing, EAR-PF Ancient DNA meets modern genomes: An exploration of diatom evolution, ecology, and environmental change in the Yellowstone Basin, Phylogeny of the Diatom Stephanodiscus yellowstonensis, Collaborative Research: The Response of Continental Hydrothermal Systems to Tectonic, Magmatic, and Climatic Forcing, Collaborative Research: The Response of Continental Hydrothermal Systems to Tectonic, Magmatic, and Climatic Forcing
OpenAlex ID: W4230839441