Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Do conspicuous manuscripts experience shorter time in the duration of peer review?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2112.09360 v1 pith:PXWE6W7T submitted 2021-12-17 cs.DL

Do conspicuous manuscripts experience shorter time in the duration of peer review?

classification cs.DL
keywords peerreviewdurationattentionauthorsmanuscriptsmuchresearch
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

A question often asked by authors is how long would it take for the peer review process. Peer review duration has been concerned much by authors and attracted much attention in academia these years. Existing research on this field focuses primarily on a single quantitative dimension. Seldom studies considered that peer review duration is closely related to the attractiveness of manuscripts. This study aims to fill this research gap employing attention economy theory. By analyzing the peer review history from the British Medical Journal (BMJ), we find that a significant negative relationship exists between the peer review duration and altmetric attention score (AAs). Overall, our study contributes to understanding peer review behavior from a new perspective and bridging the divide between peer reviews and altmetrics.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. AgentReview: Exploring Peer Review Dynamics with LLM Agents

    cs.CL 2024-06 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    AgentReview is the first LLM-based simulation framework for peer review that quantifies a 37.1% decision variation attributable to reviewer biases.