There is a growing amount of research on peer reviewing, not only to obtain a better understanding of it as a key pillar of contemporary science but also because the peer review system is increasingly perceived to be in a state of crisis. Based on a sample of researchers in a variety of scientific fields and geographical locations, this study contributes to a better understanding of who engages in peer reviewing activities. It uses three measures of peer reviewing activity (i.e. number of peer reviews, length of the referee report, and review-to-publication ratio) to create a typology of peer review engagement, and identifies three disproportionally sized clusters of peer review engagement: selfish reviewers (accounting for almost two-thirds of the sample), diligent referees (∼30%), and prolific reviewers (<4%). This typology also permits the identification of a specialization of peer reviewing based on the two main purposes of peer reviewing. Specifically, diligent referees focus on development and improvement, and prolific reviewers focus on gatekeeping and quality control. Demographic (age, gender), professional (academic inbreeding), organizational (resources), and dimensions of the strategic research agendas of researchers characterize all three of the clusters, often in diverse manners. The findings underline a concerning prevalence of an egotistical perspective, even among researchers who engage in peer reviewing.

--

Peer review,Profiling,Clustering,Publons

• Educational Sciences - Social Sciences
• Media and Communications - Social Sciences
• Other Social Sciences - Social Sciences

This publication is an output of the following project(s):

• Towards sustainable, equalitarian, and society-driven research practices and agendas