Next Article in Journal
Unaccompanied Minors: Worldwide Research Perspectives
Previous Article in Journal
Scientific Communication—A Vision for Tomorrow
Article

Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective

1
Institute for Medical Research, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
2
Department of Social Studies, Centre for Data Intensive Sciences and Applications, Linnaeus University, 35195 Växjö, Sweden
3
Department of Social Work, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
4
Department of Electrochemistry, Institute of Chemistry, Technology and Metallurgy, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
5
Institute for the Application of Nuclear Energy (INEP), University of Belgrade, 11080 Belgrade, Serbia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Publications 2019, 7(1), 1; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010001
Received: 30 October 2018 / Revised: 7 December 2018 / Accepted: 17 December 2018 / Published: 24 December 2018
The aim of this study was to investigate the opinion of authors on the overall quality and effectiveness of reviewers’ contributions to reviewed papers. We employed an on-line survey of thirteen journals which publish articles in the field of life, social or technological sciences. Responses received from 193 authors were analysed using a mixed-effects model in order to determine factors deemed the most important in the authors’ evaluation of the reviewers. Qualitative content analysis of the responses to open questions was performed as well. The mixed-effects model revealed that the authors’ assessment of the competence of referees strongly depended on the final editorial decision and that the speed of the review process was influential as well. In Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) analysis on seven questions detailing authors’ opinions, perception of review speed remained a significant predictor of the assessment. In addition, both the perceived competence and helpfulness of the reviewers significantly and positively affected the authors’ evaluation. New models were used to re-check the value of these two factors and it was confirmed that the assessment of the competence of reviewers strongly depended on the final editorial decision. View Full-Text
Keywords: reviewers’ reports; authors’ opinion; on-line survey; mixed-effect model; content analysis reviewers’ reports; authors’ opinion; on-line survey; mixed-effect model; content analysis
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Drvenica, I.; Bravo, G.; Vejmelka, L.; Dekanski, A.; Nedić, O. Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective. Publications 2019, 7, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010001

AMA Style

Drvenica I, Bravo G, Vejmelka L, Dekanski A, Nedić O. Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective. Publications. 2019; 7(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010001

Chicago/Turabian Style

Drvenica, Ivana, Giangiacomo Bravo, Lucija Vejmelka, Aleksandar Dekanski, and Olgica Nedić. 2019. "Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective" Publications 7, no. 1: 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010001

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop