Table 5 Mixed-effects linear model on the subjectivity of the review reports

From: The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals

Fixed effects

Estimate

Std. error

DF

t-value

p-value

(Intercept)

0.474

0.009

88.259

50.168

<0.001

Open review

−0.004

0.006

14,882.815

−0.714

0.475

Recommendation: Major revisions

−0.001

0.002

15,358.303

−0.495

0.621

Recommendation: Minor revisions

−0.009

0.002

15,181.168

−5.117

<0.001

Recommendation: Accept

0.016

0.003

15,355.360

4.802

<0.001

log (report length)

−0.003

0.001

12,093.818

−2.943

0.003

Status: Other

0.013

0.004

15,269.542

3.190

0.001

Status: Dr

−0.000

0.002

15,323.657

−0.017

0.987

Gender: Male

−0.003

0.004

15,358.678

−0.911

0.362

Gender: Uncertain

−0.006

0.004

15,354.994

−1.523

0.128

Year

0.001

0.001

7472.727

2.592

0.010

Open review × Status: Other

−0.015

0.006

15,216.244

−2.708

0.007

Open review × Status: Dr

0.000

0.003

15,305.227

0.151

0.880

Open review × Gender: Male

0.001

0.005

15,367.995

0.216

0.829

Open review × Gender: Uncertain

0.006

0.005

15,370.099

1.042

0.297

Std. Dev. of random effects:

Submission (intercept)

0.018

    

Journal (intercept)

0.010

    

Residual

0.083

    

No. of observations

15,387.0

    

Log likelihood

15,985.5

    

AIC

−31,970.9

    
  1. The reference class for the referees’ status is “Professor”, while for gender is “Female”, the one for recommendation is “Reject”. Only reports including at least 250 characters were considered. Degrees of freedom were computed using Satterthwaite’s approximation