Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969-2015)

PLoS One. 2018 Feb 21;13(2):e0193148. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193148. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

This paper examines research on peer review between 1969 and 2015 by looking at records indexed from the Scopus database. Although it is often argued that peer review has been poorly investigated, we found that the number of publications in this field doubled from 2005. A half of this work was indexed as research articles, a third as editorial notes and literature reviews and the rest were book chapters or letters. We identified the most prolific and influential scholars, the most cited publications and the most important journals in the field. Co-authorship network analysis showed that research on peer review is fragmented, with the largest group of co-authors including only 2.1% of the whole community. Co-citation network analysis indicated a fragmented structure also in terms of knowledge. This shows that despite its central role in research, peer review has been examined only through small-scale research projects. Our findings would suggest that there is need to encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing across different research communities.

Publication types

  • Historical Article
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Abstracting and Indexing / history
  • Abstracting and Indexing / methods*
  • Animals
  • Data Mining / history
  • Data Mining / methods*
  • Databases, Bibliographic*
  • History, 20th Century
  • History, 21st Century
  • Humans
  • Peer Review / methods*

Grants and funding

This work has been supported by the TD1306 COST Action PEERE. The first author, Francisco Grimaldo, was also funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness project TIN2015-66972-C5-5-R. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.