Challenges, experiments, and computational solutions in peer review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Improving the peer review process in a scientific manner shows promise.

Related collections

Most cited references 43

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review

Andrew Tomkins, Min Zhang, William D Heavlin (2017)

Significance Scientific peer review has been a cornerstone of the scientific method since the 1600s. Debate continues regarding the merits of single-blind review, in which anonymous reviewers know the authors of a paper and their affiliations, compared with double-blind review, in which this information is hidden. We present an experimental study of this question. In computer science, research often appears first or exclusively in peer-reviewed conferences rather than journals. Our study considers full-length submissions to the highly selective 2017 Web Search and Data Mining conference (15.6% acceptance rate). Each submission is simultaneously scored by two single-blind and two double-blind reviewers. Our analysis shows that single-blind reviewing confers a significant advantage to papers with famous authors and authors from high-prestige institutions.

0 comments Cited 106 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The ups and downs of peer review.

David Mayhew, S. Qadri, R Grace Walton … (2007)

This article traces the history of peer review of scientific publications, plotting the development of the process from its inception to its present-day application. We discuss the merits of peer review and its weaknesses, both perceived and real, as well as the practicalities of several major proposed changes to the system. It is our hope that readers will gain a better appreciation of the complexities of the process and, when serving as reviewers themselves, will do so in a manner that will enhance the utility of the exercise. We also propose the development of an international on-line training program for accreditation of potential referees.

0 comments Cited 65 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Effects of Editorial Peer Review

Tom Jefferson, Elizabeth Wager, Frank Davidoff … (2002)

0 comments Cited 34 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Title: Communications of the ACM

Abbreviated Title: Commun. ACM

Publisher: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)

ISSN (Print): 0001-0782

ISSN (Electronic): 1557-7317

Publication date Created: June 2022

Publication date (Electronic): May 20 2022

Publication date (Print): June 2022

Volume: 65

Issue: 6

Pages: 76-87

Affiliations

[1 ]Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA

Article

DOI: 10.1145/3528086

SO-VID: 566c68a3-b01b-404a-a0b1-1efde0c272f8

License:

http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background

History

Data availability:

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.