Table 3 Summary of findings.
From: Exploring reviewer self-assessment in the context of academic peer review
Variable | Fisher | Chi square p-value | Association |
|---|---|---|---|
Reviewing experience | |||
Number of reviews of journal articles | 10.454 | 0.364 | Negligible |
Number of reviews of conference articles | 6.044 | 0.648 | Negligible |
Number of reviews of chapters | 5.368 | 0.496 | Negligible |
Number of reviews of books ** | 7.951 | 0.073 | Weak |
Number of reviews of grants | 4.065 | 0.68 | Negligible |
Publishing experience | |||
Number of scientific journal articles | 6.13 | 0.633 | Negligible |
Number of conference articles | 6.684 | 0.573 | Negligible |
Number of books | 5.452 | 0.240 | Negligible |
Number of chapters | 4.729 | 0.581 | Negligible |
Available resources for peer review | |||
Using guidelines for reviewers | 2.5 | 0.969 | Negligible |
Using a checklist to assist the review | 4.02 | 0.870 | Negligible |
Publisher provided review guides ** | 13.695 | 0.070 | Weak |
Receiving articles outside the expertise area * | 16.918 | 0.016 | Strong |
Being invited to participate in training about review | 6.891 | 0.485 | Negligible |
Knowledge of review report classifications | 4.937 | 0.764 | Negligible |
Importance of available resources | |||
Guidelines | 9.75 | 0.237 | Negligible |
Checklists** | 12.178 | 0.100 | Weak |
Tools | 11.643 | 0.127 | Negligible |
Editor feedback* | 19.689 | 0.002 | Strong |
Author feedback* | 25.168 | < 0.001 | Strong |
Formal training * | 14.64 | 0.047 | Strong |
Specific template | 8.183 | 0.047 | Negligible |
Beliefs | |||
The higher the journal impact, the better the review report* | 16.665 | 0.022 | Strong |
Review quality depends on reviewer quality | 8.375 | 0.352 | Negligible |
Reviewing for journal is more rigorous than for conference | 11.076 | 0.155 | Negligible |
As an author, I am pleased with the quality of the review reports | 8.079 | 0.222 | Negligible |
