Peer reviewers equally critique theory, method, and writing, with limited effect on manuscripts' content

10/15/2021
by   Dimity Stephen, et al.
0

Peer review aims to detect flaws and deficiencies in the design and interpretation of studies, and ensure the clarity and quality of their presentation. However, it has been questioned whether peer review fulfils this function. Studies have highlighted a stronger focus of reviewers on critiquing methodological aspects of studies and the quality of writing in biomedical sciences, with less focus on theoretical grounding. In contrast, reviewers in the social sciences appear more concerned with theoretical underpinnings. These studies also found the effect of peer review on manuscripts' content to be variable, but generally modest and positive. I qualitatively analysed 1,430 peer reviewers' comments for a sample of 40 social science preprint-publication pairs to identify the key foci of reviewers' comments. I then quantified the effect of peer review on manuscripts by examining differences between the preprint and published versions using the normalised Levenshtein distance, cosine similarity, and word count ratios for titles, abstracts, document sections and full-texts. I also examined changes in references used between versions and linked changes to reviewers' comments. Reviewers' comments were nearly equally split between issues of methodology (30.7 writing quality (29.2 documents remained similar, although publications were typically longer than preprints. Two-thirds of citations were unchanged, 20.9 review and 13.1 attended to the theoretical and methodological details and communication style of manuscripts, although the effect on quantitative measures of the manuscripts was limited.

READ FULL TEXT

Please sign up or login with your details

Forgot password? Click here to reset