Motivations for performing scholarly prepublication peer review: A scoping review

References

• Bianchi, F., F. Grimaldo, and F. Squazzoni. 2019. “The F3-index. Valuing Reviewers for Scholarly Journals.” Journal of Informetrics 13 (1): 78–86. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.11.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewis, J. 2018. “On Interference, Collegiality and Co-authorship: Peer Review of Journal Articles in Management and Organization Studies.” Organization 25 (1): 21–41. doi:10.1177/1350508417703472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collaboration, T. C. 2011. “Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.” Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011] Accessed 22 June 2020. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_9/9_5_2_identifying_and_measuring_heterogeneity.htm
   Google Scholar
• Correia, A., and M. Kozak. 2017. “The Review Process in Tourism Academia: An Elaboration of Reviewers‘ Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivations.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 32: 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2017.03.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curtin, P. A., J. Russial, and A. Tefertiller. 2018. “Reviewers’ Perceptions of the Peer Review Process in Journalism and Mass Communication.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 95: 278–299. doi:10.1177/1077699017736031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Andrea, R., and J. O’Dwyer. 2017. “Can Editors Save Peer Review from Peer Reviewers?”.” PLoS ONE 12: e0186111. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0186111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deci, E. L., R. Koestner, and R. M. Ryan. 1999. “A Meta-analytic Review of Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation.” Psychological Bulletin 125 (6): 627–668. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Economist. 2019. “Peer Review Is a Thankless Job. One Firm Wants to Change That.” Economist. Accessed 22 June 2020. https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2017/06/01/peer-review-is-a-thankless-job.-one-firm-wants-to-change-that
   Google Scholar
• Elsevier. 2019. “What Is Peer Review?.” Elsevier. Accessed 22 June 2020. https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review
   Google Scholar
• Emden, C., and S. Schubert. 1998. “Manuscript Reviewing: What Reviewers Have to Say.” Contemporary Nurse 7 (3): 117–124. doi:10.5172/conu.1998.7.3.117.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Esarey, J. 2017. “Does Peer Review Identify the Best Papers? A Simulation Study of Editors, Reviewers, and the Scientific Publication Process.” Ps-Political Science & Politics 50: 963–969. doi:10.1017/S1049096517001081.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field, A. P., and R. Gillett. 2010. “How to Do a Meta-analysis.” British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 63 ((Pt 3)): 665–694. https://www.discoveringstatistics.com/repository/2010_field_&_gillett.pdf
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, C. W. 2017. “Difficulty of Recruiting Reviewers Predicts Review Scores and Editorial Decisions at Six Journals of Ecology and Evolution.” Scientometrics 113 (1): 465–477. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2489-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frontiers. 2019. “Why Peer Review Needs to Be Recognized.” Frontiers. Accessed 22 June 2020. https://blog.frontiersin.org/2016/09/14/why-peer-review-needs-to-be-recognized/
   Google Scholar
• Garcia, J. A., R. Rodriguez-Sanchez, and J. Fdez-Valdivia. 2016. “Authors and Reviewers Who Suffer from Confirmatory Bias.” Scientometrics 109 (2): 1377–1395. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2079-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia, J. A., R. Rodruguez-Sanchez, and J. Fdez-Valdivia. 2017. “The Game between a Biased Reviewer and His Editor.” Science and Engineering Ethics 25: 265–283. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9998-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimaldo, F., A. Marušić, and F. Squazzoni. 2018. “Fragments of Peer Review: A Quantitative Analysis of the Literature (1969-2015).” PLoS ONE 13 (2): e0193148. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0193148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heim, A., P. Ravaud, G. Baron, and I. Boutron. 2018. “Designs of Trials Assessing Interventions to Improve the Peer Review Process: A Vignette-based Survey.” BMC Medicine 16: 191. doi:10.1186/s12916-018-1167-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isen, A. M., and J. Reeve. 2005. “The Influence of Positive Affect on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: Facilitating Enjoyment of Play, Responsible Work Behavior, and Self-Control.” Motivation and Emotion 29 (4): 295–323. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9019-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joanna Briggs Institute. 2019. “Critical Appraisal Tools.” Joanna Briggs Institute. Accessed 8 September 2020. https://joannabriggs.org/sites/default/files/2020-08/Checklist_for_Analytical_Cross_Sectional_Studies.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kearney, M. H., J. G. Baggs, M. E. Broome, M. C. Dougherty, and M. C. Freda. 2008. “Experience, Time Investment, and Motivators of Nursing Journal Peer Reviewers.” Journal of Nursing Scholarship 40 (4): 395–400. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2008.00255.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovanis, M., R. Porcher, P. Ravaud, and L. Trinquart. 2016a. “Complex Systems Approach to Scientific Publication and Peer-review System: Development of an Agent-based Model Calibrated with Empirical Journal Data.” Scientometrics 106: 695–715. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1800-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovanis, M., R. Porcher, P. Ravaud, and L. Trinquart. 2016b. “The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise.” PloSOne 11 (11): e0166387. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipworth, W. L., I. H. Kerridge, S. M. Carter, and M. Little. 2011. “Journal Peer Review in Context: A Qualitative Study of the Social and Subjective Dimensions of Manuscript Review in Biomedical Publishing.” Social Science & Medicine 72 (7): 1056–1063. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, Y. 2013. “Experienced Journal Reviewers’ Perceptions of and Engagement with the Task of Reviewing: An Australian Perspective.” Higher Education Research & Development 32 (6): 946–959. doi:10.1080/07294360.2013.806441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahmić-Kaknjo, M., A. Jeličić-Kadić, A. Utrobičić, K. Chan, L. Bero, and A. Marušić. 2018. “Essential Medicines Availability Is Still Suboptimal in Many Countries: A Scoping Review.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 98: 41–52. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahmić-Kaknjo, M., J. Šimić, and K. Krleža-Jerić. 2018. “Setting the IMPACT (Improve Access to Clinical Trial Data) Observatory Baseline.” BiochemiaMedica (Zagreb) 28 (1): 010201. doi:10.11613/BM.2018.010201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meneghini, R., and A. L. Packer. 2007. “Is There Science beyond English? Initiatives to Increase the Quality and Visibility of non-English Publications Might Help to Break down Language Barriers in Scientific Communication.” EMBO Reports 8 (2): 112–116. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400906.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullan, Z. 2016. “Recognition for Peer Review.” Lancet Glob Health 4 (11): e784.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nature. 2010. “Publish or Perish.” Nature 467 (7313): 252. doi:10.1038/193709a0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nature. 2020. “Peer Review Should Be an Honest, but Collegial, Conversation.” Nature 582: 314. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01622-z.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Neill, U. S. 2008. “Publish or Perish, but at What Cost?”.” The Journal of Clinical Investigation 118 (7): 2368. doi:10.1172/JCI36371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newton, D. P. 2010. “Quality and Peer Review of Research: An Adjudicating Role for Editors.” Accountability in Research 17 (3): 130–145. doi:10.1080/08989621003791945.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen, V. M., N. R. Haddaway, L. F. Gutowsky, A. D. Wilson, A. J. Gallagher, M. R. Donaldson, N. Hammerschlag, and S. J. Cooke. 2015. “How Long Is Too Long in Contemporary Peer Review? Perspectives from Authors Publishing in Conservation Biology Journals.” PLoS One 10 (8): e0132557. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nobarany, S., K. S. Booth, and G. Hsieh. 2016. “What Motivates People to Review Articles? The Case of the Human-computer Interaction Community.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67: 1358–1371. doi:10.1002/asi.23469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paolucci, M., and F. Grimaldo. 2014. “Mechanism Change in a Simulation of Peer Review: From Junk Support to Elitism.” Scientometrics 99: 663. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1239-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, I. U., M. W. Peacey, and M. R. Munafò. 2014. “Modelling the Effects of Subjective and Objective Decision Making in Scientific Peer Review.” Nature 506 (7486): 93–96. doi:10.1038/nature12786.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prechelt, L., D. Graziotin, and D. M. Fernandez. 2018. “A Community’s Perspective on the Status and Future of Peer Review in Software Engineering.” Information and Software Technology 95: 75–85. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2017.10.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross-Hellauer, T. 2018. “What Is Open Peer Review? A Systematic Review [Version 2; Referees: 4 Approved].” F1000 Research 6: 58. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2000. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 25: 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savulescu, J., and A. M. Viens. 2005. “What Makes the Best Medical Ethics Journal? A North American Perspective.” Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (10): 591–597. doi:10.1136/jme.2004.010827.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, R. 2006. “Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals”.” Journal of Royal Society of Medicine 99 (4): 178–182. doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Squazzoni, F., and C. Gandelli. 2013b. “Opening the Black-box of Peer Review: An Agent-based Model of Scientist Behaviour.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 16 (2): 3. doi:10.18564/jasss.2128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Squazzoni, F., G. Bravo, and K. Takács. 2013a. “Does Incentive Provision Increase the Quality of Peer Review? An Experimental Study.” Research Policy 42 (1): 287–294. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Squazzoni, F., and K. Takács. 2011. “Social Simulation that ‘Peers into Peer Review’.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 14 (4): 3. doi:10.18564/jasss.1821.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tite, L., and S. Schroter. 2007. “Why Do Peer Reviewers Decline to Review? A Survey.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 61 (1): 9–12. doi:10.1136/jech.2006.049817.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tricco, A. C., et al. 2018. “PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-scr): Checklist and Explanation.” Annals of Internal Medicine 169 (7): 467. doi:10.7326/M18-0850.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Rooyen, S., F. Godlee, S. Evans, N. Black, and R. Smith. 1999. “Effect of Open Peer Review on Quality of Reviews and on Reviewers’ Recommendations: A Randomised Trial.” BMJ 318: 23–27. doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verywellmind. 2019. “Extrinsic Motivation.” Verywellmind. Accessed 22 June 2020. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-extrinsic-motivation–2795164
   Google Scholar
• Walker, R., and P. Rocha da Silva. 2015. “Emerging Trends in Peer review—A Survey.” Frontiers in Neuroscience 9: 1–18. doi:10.3389/fnins.2015.00169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware, M., and M. Mabe. 2015. “The STM Report: An Overview of Scientific and Scholarly Journal Publishing. Resource Document. STM – The Global Voice of Scholarly Publishing.” Accessed 23 June 2020. https://www.stm-assoc.org/2018_10_04_STM_Report_2018.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Warne, V. 2016. “Rewarding Reviewers - Sense or Sensibility? A Wiley Study Explained.” Learned Publishing 29: 41–50. doi:10.1002/leap.1002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wicherts, J. M. 2016. “Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals.” PLoS One 11 (1): e0147913. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147913.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaharie, M. A., and C. L. Osoian. 2016. “Peer Review Motivation Frames: A Qualitative Approach.” European Management Journal 34 (1): 69–79. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2015.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar