Peer Reviewers More Likely To Approve Articles That Cite Their Own Work

Reviewers are more likely to approve a manuscript if their own work is cited in subsequent versions than are reviewers who are not cited, according to an analysis of 18,400 articles from four open-access publications. From a report: The study, which is yet to be peer reviewed, was posted online as a preprint earlier this month. The study was inspired by anecdotes from authors who cited articles only because reviewers asked them to, says study author Adrian Barnett, who researches peer review and meta-research at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. Sometimes, these requests are fine, he says. But if reviewers ask for too many citations or the reason to cite their work is not justified, the peer-review process can become transactional, says Barnett. Citations increase a researcher's h-index, a metric reflecting the impact of their publications.

What a surprise!

[ehack]

Is this paper going to get an IGNobel?

Re:

[registrations_suck]

My new study indicates that people with dogs are more likely to buy dog food than people without dogs.

When do I get my Nobel Prize?

Re:

[Valgrus Thunderaxe]

How many times has *this* site directed me to an article where I have to pay $800 to read it? No wonder people are skeptical about academic publishing, esp. when my tax money was used to fund the research that produced these very articles I'm not allowed to read as a party that helped fund it?

Re:What a surprise!

[Tony Isaac]

Maybe it will even get a Nobel, if the authors cited the right number of Nobel prize decision makers.

Re:

[arglebargle_xiv]

Probably not, because it has a giant hole in its methodology:

The study was inspired by anecdotes from authors who cited articles only because reviewers asked them to

So this was the revised version of the original paper that was submitted, in other words the version where the authors made several, possibly major, changes to the paper in response to the reviewer comments, which could include citing the reviewer's work. If they ignored the reviewer comments, or only made token changes, there'd be less chance of the paper then being accepted.

So what they actually measured was whether paper authors that respond

Re:

[nospam007]

Indeed, everybody also uses a cover for the dissertation or whatever in the same color as the professor's car.

Re:

[wyHunter]

Yeah. I was a teenager when I read Heinlein's _Number of the Beast_ where this was mentioned and I thought 'well this is unsurprising.' I'd never considered it before. Must be going on for centuries, actually.

Worst Research Project Ever???

[Un-Thesis]

These guys are sure spending tax payers' dollars wisely!!

Where's DOGE?!?!?!

Re:

[93 Escort Wagon]

Did you bother to check where the author of the paper is from?

Hint: No, you most obviously did not.

Re:

[Un-Thesis]

No, I did not even read the article. What are you, a newb around here?!

Nope, you're my slashdot elder :-( Why are you rating at me for not reading TFA??? All due reverence to you.

Brisbane, Australia, says everything. I will utter my sincerest apologies, as those Aussie scientists are conducintg some of the most ground-breaking research to ever come forth from that most White of countries most South of the equator.

Re:Worst Research Project Ever???

[test321]

Not all research has to be ground-breaking. Research has to address a valid question, and check the results. You only find whether it's ground breaking *after* you finish. And unsurprising results are also worthwhile of publication such that they lead to strengthen the scientific consensus on given topic. It's only after a number of researchers have found the same result that scientists agree it is most likely correct.
Also such unsurprising results are frequently useful beyond the headline by quantifying. Even if you could guess the effect "more likely to approve articles" would exist, nobody before would guess the quantitative value, which tells us how severe the problem is. In this case, the odds ratio was 1.61 and of course you could not have guessed it before.

Re:

[test321]

This research project provides evidence that enables evolutions of the peer review mechanism. The author suggests either the Open peer review mechanism, or the Blinded reference peer review. As the author obtained all data from the publishers, they are involved in the conversation, so this gives an opportunity for the scientific edition world to improve. The author cites some publishers that already uses some of these improved methods.

This is science

[parityshrimp]

Yes, the result is obvious. But now we have data to back the obvious result.

Re:

[Un-Thesis]

Plus it's the 3rd major piece of science to come out of Brisbane, Australia, this decade!!! Relative to that location, of course!

INSTANT CRED!!

[gavron]

The study, which is yet to be peer reviewed...

So you and five friends all write papers about how peer reviewers tend to approve papers that cite the reviewer...
and each of you cites the others' papers....
and each of you approves the others' papers for publication...
and you submit them (all) to five publications staggered over five months...
and within half a year you are now a PUBLISHED AUTHOR, a noted PEER REVIEWER, and your WORK HAS BEEN CITED FAVORABLY.

Solution: international database linking authors, publications, reviewers, and disallowing Alice to

Whoopee

[dsgrntlxmply]

It took only 50 years to write up what my investigator told me as a young research assistant. Next week: the scandal of page charges and the looming spectre of Science Citation Index.

only the best

[noshellswill]

The best publish original work. The best-of-the-best peer-review those submitted works. This positive feed-back loop favoring the able gives the noted results.

Mildly amusing

[jargonburn]

The study, which is yet to be peer reviewed

Given the topic, this struck me as an amusing qualifier. Based on the paper's conclusion, said paper should sail through the peer review process with flying colors, given it's probably citing EVERYONE! :D

From the scratch-my-back dept.

[Kernel Kurtz]

And also from the no shit department.

Yip

[bleedingobvious]

Humans are garbage.

News at Elevnty.

Connections

[fluffernutter]

Shouldn't a proper peer review only be done by people with no connection to the paper? I thought that was the point.

Re:

[backslashdot]

A citation is just a reference to an older piece of work. Nearly everyone cited in a paper has no connection to it, other than the fact that their past research was useful or relevant to points being made in the paper. If you mean reviewers past work shouldn't be on the citations list, that's often not very possible. I mean, you need an expert in the field to review the paper and such a person usually has a publication that your own paper relies on .. especially when publishing at the top tier level .. the

Re:

[fluffernutter]

Then maybe science cannot be truly unbiased.

That does make sense

[godrik]

If you look past the "if I publish this my hindex goes up", the result does make sense. Yes, it could be transactional, but it doesn't have to be.

The most common reasons to reject a paper are "the method isn't quite right" or "there is a missing point of comparison". And since their own work is the piece that they would know the most, citing that usually fixes the problem in the mind of the reviewer.

Not Peer reviewed yet

[Deal In One]

It will be peer reviewed when it has the appropriate cites from the reviewers. /j

And when you don't cite their work...

[Torodung]

If you get to the peer review process, and don't cite a reviewer's work, they will often insist that you include their work in the paper anyway. Why didn't you mention this? Even if it has little to do with the methodology or focus of the paper.

So, lesson learned. Academics are really into their own head space, as to be expected.