Peer Reviewers More Likely To Approve Articles That Cite Their Own Work (nature.com)
- Reference: 0178812110
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/08/21/2015236/peer-reviewers-more-likely-to-approve-articles-that-cite-their-own-work
- Source link: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02547-1
> 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.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02547-1
Worst Research Project Ever??? (Score:2)
These guys are sure spending tax payers' dollars wisely!!
Where's DOGE?!?!?!
Re: (Score:2)
Did you bother to check where the author of the paper is from?
Hint: No, you most obviously did not.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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. E
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
> Where's DOGE?!?!?!
In the DOGEhouse. I saw on the TV last night they sit around snorting ketamine. The news channel was... mmm... South Park S27E03.
h/t Trey and Matt. It's hard to be funny most of 26.5 years!!!!!!! Kudos to you!
This is science (Score:2)
Yes, the result is obvious. But now we have data to back the obvious result.
Re: (Score:2)
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!! (Score:1)
> 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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:1)
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 (Score:2)
> 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. (Score:2)
And also from the no shit department.
What a surprise! (Score:3)
Is this paper going to get an IGNobel?
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
Maybe it will even get a Nobel, if the authors cited the right number of Nobel prize decision makers.