Startsida
Hjälp
Sök i LIBRIS databas

     

 

Sökning: onr:1bq46w2sz67tq51k > The language of pee...

The language of peer review reports on articles published in the BMJ, 2014-2017 [Elektronisk resurs] an observational study

Falk Delgado, Alberto (författare)
Garretson, Gregory, 1968- (författare)
Delgado, Anna Falk (författare)
Uppsala universitet Medicinska och farmaceutiska vetenskapsområdet (utgivare)
Uppsala universitet Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet (utgivare)
Publicerad: SPRINGER, 2019
Engelska.
Ingår i: Scientometrics. - 0138-9130. ; 120:3, 1225-1235
Läs hela texten
Läs hela texten
Läs hela texten
  • E-artikel/E-kapitel
Sammanfattning Ämnesord
Stäng  
  • To analyse the words and expressions used in peer reviews of manuscripts that were later published as original research in the BMJ. Secondary aims were to estimate the differences in net sentiment between peer review reports on manuscripts subject to one or more rounds of peer review and and review reports on initially rejected manuscripts that were accepted after appeal. This observational study included all peer review reports published in the BMJ from September 2014 until the end of 2017. The study analysed the frequency of specific words in peer review reports for accepted manuscripts, identifying the most commonly occurring positive and negative words and their context, as well as the most common expressions. It also quantified differences in net sentiment in peer review reports between manuscripts accepted after appeal and manuscript accepted without appeal. The dataset consisting of 1716 peer review reports contained 908,932 word tokens. Among the most frequent positive words were "well", "important", "clear", "while the negative words included "risk", "bias", and "confounding". The areas where the reviewer makes the most positive and negative comments included: "well-written paper", "well-written manuscript", "this is an important topic", "answers an important question", "high risk of bias" and "selection bias". The sentiment analysis revealed that manuscripts accepted after appeal had lower scores on review reports for joy and positive sentiment, in addition to having higher scores for negative words expressing sadness, fear, disgust and anger compared with manuscripts that were not initially rejected. Peer review comments were mainly related to methodology rather than the actual results. Peer review reports on initially rejected manuscripts were more negative and more often included expressions related to a high risk of bias. 

Ämnesord

Humanities and the Arts  (hsv)
Languages and Literature  (hsv)
Specific Languages  (hsv)
Humaniora och konst  (hsv)
Språk och litteratur  (hsv)
Studier av enskilda språk  (hsv)

Genre

government publication  (marcgt)

Indexterm och SAB-rubrik

BMJ
Peer review
Reviewer comments
Linguistics
Medicine
Open peer review
Inställningar Hjälp

Beståndsinformation saknas

Om LIBRIS
Sekretess
Blogg
Hjälp
Fel i posten?
Kontakt
Teknik och format
Sök utifrån
Sökrutor
Plug-ins
Bookmarklet
Anpassa
Textstorlek
Kontrast
Vyer
LIBRIS söktjänster
SwePub
Sondera
Uppsök

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

Copyright © LIBRIS - Nationella bibliotekssystem

 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy