Marolov, Dejan (2022) The consistency of peer-reviewers: Assessment of separate parts of the manuscripts vs final recommendations. Accountability in Research Policies and Quality Assurance. ISSN 0898-962
Full text not available from this repository.Abstract
Delving into the review reports, this paper is aimed at analyzing reviewers` attitudes toward different sections of the manuscripts they review. The research focuses on the consistency of reviewers` evaluation through analysis of their assessment of separate parts of a paper, if it corresponds with the recommendations they made to the editors and whether a paper needs revision or should be accepted/rejected. It is assumed that the assessment of separate parts of a paper should be consistent with the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. Based on the analysis presented in this paper it can be concluded that the assessments of separate parts of articles in the evaluation sheets do not fully reflect the final recommendations of the reviewers. The results showed that the most correlated and therefore the most significant sections for the reviewers are the main text and the conclusions. The conditional probability analysis showed that the decision of reviewers, when number of points in the evaluation sheet is taken into consideration, is slightly unpredictable. No significant differences in the reviewers` recommendations based on gender or country of origin of the reviewers were found.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Impact Factor Value: | 3.057 |
| Additional Information: | Доказ за имапкт фактор: https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=journalMetrics&journalCode=gacr20 |
| Subjects: | Social Sciences > Other social sciences |
| Divisions: | Faculty of Law |
| Depositing User: | Dejan Marolov |
| Date Deposited: | 12 Oct 2022 07:16 |
| Last Modified: | 12 Oct 2022 07:16 |
| URI: | https://eprints.ugd.edu.mk/id/eprint/30174 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |