{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,20]],"date-time":"2026-02-20T17:32:50Z","timestamp":1771608770962,"version":"3.50.1"},"reference-count":52,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"2","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2020,5,26]],"date-time":"2020-05-26T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1590451200000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2020,5,26]],"date-time":"2020-05-26T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1590451200000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"funder":[{"DOI":"10.13039\/100006817","name":"University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","id":[{"id":"10.13039\/100006817","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"publisher"}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Scientometrics"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2020,11]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:p>Open peer review (OPR), where review reports and reviewers\u2019 identities are published alongside the articles, represents one of the last aspects of the open science movement to be widely embraced, although its adoption has been growing since the turn of the century. This study provides the first comprehensive investigation of OPR adoption, its early adopters and the implementation approaches used. Current bibliographic databases do not systematically index OPR journals, nor do the OPR journals clearly state their policies on open identities and open reports. Using various methods, we identified 617 OPR journals that published at least one article with open identities or open reports as of 2019 and analyzed their wide-ranging implementations to derive emerging OPR practices. The findings suggest that: (1) there has been a steady growth in OPR adoption since 2001, when 38 journals initially adopted OPR, with more rapid growth since 2017; (2) OPR adoption is most prevalent in medical and scientific disciplines (79.9%); (3) five publishers are responsible for 81% of the identified OPR journals; (4) early adopter publishers have implemented OPR in different ways, resulting in different levels of transparency. Across the variations in OPR implementations, two important factors define the degree of transparency: open identities and open reports. Open identities may include reviewer names and affiliation as well as credentials; open reports may include timestamped review histories consisting of referee reports and author rebuttals or a letter from the editor integrating reviewers\u2019 comments. When and where open reports can be accessed are also important factors indicating the OPR transparency level. Publishers of optional OPR journals should add metric data in their annual status reports.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-020-03488-4","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2020,5,26]],"date-time":"2020-05-26T00:02:33Z","timestamp":1590451353000},"page":"1033-1051","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":112,"title":["Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"125","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-4991-276X","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Dietmar","family":"Wolfram","sequence":"first","affiliation":[]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-4202-7570","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Peiling","family":"Wang","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Adam","family":"Hembree","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-4271-1196","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Hyoungjoo","family":"Park","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2020,5,26]]},"reference":[{"key":"3488_CR1","unstructured":"Agha, R. (2017). Publishing peer review reports. Webinar: Transparency in Peer Review. https:\/\/researcheracademy.elsevier.com\/navigating-peer-review\/fundamentals-peer-review\/transparency-peer-review."},{"key":"3488_CR2","unstructured":"ASAPbio (2018). Transparency, recognition, and innovation in peer review in the life sciences (February 2018)\/Peer review survey results. https:\/\/asapbio.org\/peer-review\/survey."},{"key":"3488_CR3","unstructured":"Barbash, F. (2014). Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes \u2018peer review ring\u2019, The Washington Post, July 10. https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/morning-mix\/wp\/2014\/07\/10\/scholarly-journal-retracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring\/?utm_term=.4ab26f14adb9."},{"key":"3488_CR4","unstructured":"Belluz, J., Plumer, B., & Resnick, B. (2016). The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists. Vox. https:\/\/www.vox.com\/2016\/7\/14\/12016710\/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process."},{"key":"3488_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bohannon, J. (2013). Who\u2019s afraid of peer review? A spoof paper concocted by Science reveals little or no scrutiny at many open-access journals. Science, 342, 60\u201365. https:\/\/www.sciencemag.org\/content\/342\/6154\/60.full.pdf.","DOI":"10.1126\/science.342.6154.60"},{"key":"3488_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"843","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-011-0569-5","volume":"91","author":"L Bornmann","year":"2012","unstructured":"Bornmann, L., Wolf, M., & Daniel, H. D. (2012). Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: how far do comments differ in language use? Scientometrics, 91, 843\u2013856. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11192-011-0569-5.","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"key":"3488_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"322","DOI":"10.1038\/s41467-018-08250-2","volume":"10","author":"G Bravo","year":"2019","unstructured":"Bravo, G., Grimaldo, F., L\u00f3pez-I\u00f1esta, E., Mehmani, B., & Squazzoni, F. (2019). The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Natural Communication, 10, 322. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s41467-018-08250-2.","journal-title":"Natural Communication"},{"issue":"4","key":"3488_CR8","first-page":"60","volume":"40","author":"A Clobridge","year":"2016","unstructured":"Clobridge, A. (2016). Open peer review: the next wave in open knowledge? Online Searcher: Information Discovery, Technology, Strategies, 40(4), 60\u201362.","journal-title":"Online Searcher: Information Discovery, Technology, Strategies"},{"issue":"5","key":"3488_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"16","DOI":"10.1002\/bul2.2017.1720430505","volume":"43","author":"MP Eve","year":"2017","unstructured":"Eve, M. P. (2017). Open access publishing models and how OA can work in the humanities. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 43(5), 16\u201320. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/bul2.2017.1720430505.","journal-title":"Bulletin of the Association for Information Science & Technology"},{"key":"3488_CR10","unstructured":"EMBO Press. (2020). Transparent Peer Review. https:\/\/www.embopress.org\/policies."},{"key":"3488_CR11","unstructured":"Fennell, C., Corney, A., & Ash E. (2017). Transparency\u2014the key to trust in peer review, Elsevier Connect,https:\/\/www.elsevier.com\/connect\/transparency-the-key-to-trust-in-peer-review."},{"issue":"4","key":"3488_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"311","DOI":"10.3138\/jsp.44-4-001","volume":"44","author":"E Ford","year":"2013","unstructured":"Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(4), 311\u2013326. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3138\/jsp.44-4-001.","journal-title":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing"},{"issue":"4","key":"3488_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"373","DOI":"10.1080\/0361526X.2014.985415","volume":"67","author":"A Fresco-Santalla","year":"2014","unstructured":"Fresco-Santalla, A., & Hern\u00e1ndez-P\u00e9rez, T. (2014). Current and evolving models of peer review. The Serials Librarian, 67(4), 373\u2013398. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/0361526X.2014.985415.","journal-title":"The Serials Librarian"},{"key":"3488_CR14","unstructured":"Graf, C. (2019) Why more journals are joining our transparent peer review pilot. Director, Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics at Wiley. September 20, 2019. https:\/\/www.wiley.com\/network\/researchers\/latest-content\/why-more-journals-are-joining-our-transparent-peer-review-pilot."},{"key":"3488_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"65","DOI":"10.3390\/publications3020065","volume":"3","author":"J Gross","year":"2015","unstructured":"Gross, J., & Ryan, J. C. (2015). Landscapes of research: perceptions of open access (OA) publishing in the arts and humanities. Publications, 3, 65\u201388. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/publications3020065.","journal-title":"Publications"},{"key":"3488_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"237","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.280.3.237","volume":"280","author":"F Godlee","year":"1998","unstructured":"Godlee, F., Gale, C. R., & Martyn, C. N. (1998). Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 280, 237\u2013240.","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"key":"3488_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"G\u00f6r\u00f6gh, E., Schmidt, B., Banelyt\u0117, V., Stanciauskas, V., & Woutersen-Windhouwer, S. (2019). OpenUP Deliverable D3.1\u2014Practices, evaluation and mapping: Methods, tools and user needs. OpenUP Project. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5281\/zenodo.2557272.","DOI":"10.5281\/zenodo.2557272"},{"issue":"1","key":"3488_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"25","DOI":"10.1186\/s41073-019-0081-7","volume":"4","author":"T Haven","year":"2019","unstructured":"Haven, T., Tijdink, J., Pasman, H. R., et al. (2019). Researchers\u2019 perceptions of research misbehaviours: a mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4(1), 25. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s41073-019-0081-7.","journal-title":"Research Integrity and Peer Review"},{"issue":"79","key":"3488_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2","DOI":"10.3389\/fncom.2012.00079","volume":"6","author":"N Kriegeskorte","year":"2012","unstructured":"Kriegeskorte, N. (2012). Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6(79), 2\u201318. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/fncom.2012.00079.","journal-title":"Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience"},{"key":"3488_CR20","unstructured":"Lawrence, R. (2015). Preventing peer review fraud: F1000Research, the F1000 Faculty and the crowd. https:\/\/blog.f1000.com\/2015\/04\/09\/preventing-peer-review-fraud-f1000research-the-f1000-faculty-and-the-crowd\/."},{"issue":"1","key":"3488_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2","DOI":"10.1002\/asi.22784","volume":"64","author":"CJ Lee","year":"2013","unstructured":"Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, C., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2\u201317. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/asi.22784.","journal-title":"Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology"},{"issue":"2","key":"3488_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"150","DOI":"10.1016\/S0099-1767(99)70163-7","volume":"25","author":"RE Malone","year":"1999","unstructured":"Malone, R. E. (1999). Should peer review be an open process? Journal of Emergency Nursing, 25(2), 150\u2013152.","journal-title":"Journal of Emergency Nursing"},{"key":"3488_CR23","unstructured":"Mehmani, B. (2016). Is open peer review the way forward? https:\/\/www.elsevier.com\/reviewers-update\/story\/innovation-in-publishing\/is-open-peer-review-the-way-forward."},{"key":"3488_CR24","unstructured":"Mehmani, B., & van Rossum, J. (2015). Elsevier trials publishing peer review reports as articles. https:\/\/www.elsevier.com\/reviewers-update\/story\/peer-review\/elsevier-pilot-trials-publishing-peer-review-reports-as-articles."},{"key":"3488_CR25","unstructured":"Moylan, E. (2019). How do researchers feel about open peer review? Wiley. September 17, 2019. https:\/\/www.wiley.com\/network\/researchers\/submission-and-navigating-peer-review\/how-do-researchers-feel-about-open-peer-review."},{"key":"3488_CR26","unstructured":"Moylan, E. (2020). Progressing towards transparency\u2014more journals join our transparent peer review pilot. Wiley. March 5, 2020. https:\/\/www.wiley.com\/network\/researchers\/submission-and-navigating-peer-review\/progressing-towards-transparency-more-journals-join-our-transparent-peer-review-pilot."},{"key":"3488_CR27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"132","DOI":"10.1002\/asi.22798","volume":"64","author":"A Mulligan","year":"2013","unstructured":"Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E. (2013). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 132\u2013161. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/asi.22798.","journal-title":"Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology"},{"key":"3488_CR28","unstructured":"Naik, G. (2011). Mistakes in scientific studies surge. The Wall Street Journal, 10 August 2011."},{"key":"3488_CR29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Nature (2015). Transparent peer review at Nature Communications. Nature Communication, 6, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/ncomms10277.","DOI":"10.1038\/ncomms10277"},{"key":"3488_CR30","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Nature (2016). Transparent peer review one year on. Nature Communication, 7, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/ncomms13626.","DOI":"10.1038\/ncomms13626"},{"key":"3488_CR31","unstructured":"Nature (2020). Nature will publish peer review reports as a trial, Editorial 05 February 2020. Nature, 578. https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/d41586-020-00309-9."},{"key":"3488_CR32","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1038\/ncb0107-1","volume":"9","author":"Opening up peer review","year":"2007","unstructured":"Opening up peer review. (2007). Nature Cell Biology, 9, 1. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/ncb0107-1.","journal-title":"Nature Cell Biology"},{"key":"3488_CR33","unstructured":"Peer Review Congress (2017). Under the microscope: Transparency in peer review. Panel after the Peer Review Congress. Peer Review Congress, Chicago, 10\u201312, September 2017. Panel chaired by Alice Meadows (ORCID) with panellists: Irene Hames (Board member of Learned Publishing), Elizabeth Moylan (BMC), Andrew Preston (Publons), and Carly Strasser (Moore Foundation). https:\/\/peerreviewweek.files.wordpress.com\/2017\/05\/prw2017-panelists22.pdf. Video at https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=8x1dho6HRzE."},{"key":"3488_CR34","unstructured":"Peer Review Week. (2017). Transparency In Review is focus for Peer Review Week 2017. https:\/\/peerreviewweek.files.wordpress.com\/2016\/06\/prw_2017-_press_release-5-sept.pdf."},{"key":"3488_CR35","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"105","DOI":"10.3233\/ISU-2008-0567","volume":"28","author":"U P\u00f6schl","year":"2008","unstructured":"P\u00f6schl, U., & Koop, T. (2008). Interactive open access publishing and collaborative peer review for improved scientific communication and quality assurance. Information Services & Use, 28, 105\u2013107. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3233\/ISU-2008-0567.","journal-title":"Information Services & Use"},{"key":"3488_CR36","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Rath, M. & Wang, P. (2017). Open peer review in the era of open science: A pilot study of researchers\u2019 perceptions (Poster) In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL), 317\u2013318.","DOI":"10.1109\/JCDL.2017.7991608"},{"key":"3488_CR37","unstructured":"Rittman, M. (2018) Opening up Peer Review. https:\/\/blog.mdpi.com\/2018\/10\/12\/opening-up-peer-review\/."},{"key":"3488_CR38","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research. 2017 apr; 6:588. Available from: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.12688\/f1000research.11369.1. PMID: 28580134","DOI":"10.12688\/f1000research.11369.1"},{"issue":"12","key":"3488_CR39","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e0189311","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0189311","volume":"12","author":"T Ross-Hellauer","year":"2017","unstructured":"Ross-Hellauer, T., Deppe, A., & Schmidt, B. (2017). Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS ONE, 12(12), e0189311. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0189311.","journal-title":"PLoS ONE"},{"key":"3488_CR40","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"509","DOI":"10.1007\/s00264-018-4179-1","volume":"43","author":"M Rupp","year":"2019","unstructured":"Rupp, M., Anastasopoulou, L., Wintermeyer, E., Malhaan, D., Khassawna, T. E., & Heiss, C. (2019). Predatory journals: A major threat in orthopaedic research. International Orthopaedics, 43, 509\u2013517. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00264-018-4179-1.","journal-title":"International Orthopaedics"},{"key":"3488_CR41","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"178","DOI":"10.1258\/jrsm.99.4.178","volume":"99","author":"R Smith","year":"2006","unstructured":"Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 178\u2013182. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1258\/jrsm.99.4.178.","journal-title":"Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine"},{"issue":"5","key":"3488_CR42","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"649","DOI":"10.1108\/OIR-06-2015-0182","volume":"39","author":"T Tattersall","year":"2015","unstructured":"Tattersall, T. (2015). For what it\u2019s worth\u2014the open peer review landscape. Online Information Review, 39(5), 649\u2013663. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1108\/OIR-06-2015-0182.","journal-title":"Online Information Review"},{"key":"3488_CR43","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Tennant, J. P., Dugan J. M., Graziotin D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., \u2026 Colomb, J. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research 2017, 6:1151, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.12688\/f1000research.12037.3.","DOI":"10.12688\/f1000research.12037.3"},{"key":"3488_CR44","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"23","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.318.7175.23","volume":"318","author":"S van Rooyen","year":"1999","unstructured":"van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., & Smith, R. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers\u2019 recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ, 318, 23\u201327. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.318.7175.23.","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"3488_CR45","unstructured":"Wang, P., Rath, P., Deike, D., & Wu, Q. (2016a). Open peer review: An innovation in scientific publishing. 2016 iConference.\u00a0https:\/\/core.ac.uk\/download\/pdf\/158312603.pdf."},{"key":"3488_CR46","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Wang, P., You, S., Rath, M., & Wolfram, D. (2016b). Open peer review in scientific publishing: A web mining study of peerj authors and reviewer. Journal of Data and Information Science, 1(4), 60\u201380. https:\/\/content.sciendo.com\/view\/journals\/jdis\/1\/4\/article-p60.xml.","DOI":"10.20309\/jdis.201625"},{"key":"3488_CR48","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Wang, P., & Tahamtan, I. (2017). The state-of-the-art of Open Peer Review: Early adopters. (Poster Paper) Proceedings of the 2017 Annual Meeting of The Association for Information Science & Technology, October 27\u2014November 1, Washington DC.","DOI":"10.1002\/pra2.2017.14505401170"},{"key":"3488_CR49","unstructured":"Wang, P., & Wolfram, D. (2016). The last frontier in open science: Will open peer review transform scientific and scholarly publishing? at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Association for Information Science and Technology, October 14\u201318, 2016, Copenhagen, Denmark. [Panellists: Jason Hoyt, PeerJ; Ulrich P\u00f6schl, Max Planck; Peter Ingwersen, Royal School of Denmark & Richard Smith, retired editor of The BMJ; discussant: Marcia Bates, University of California, Log Angeles]."},{"key":"3488_CR50","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"47","DOI":"10.1192\/bjp.176.1.47","volume":"176","author":"E Walsh","year":"2000","unstructured":"Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Appleby, L., & Wilkinson, G. (2000). Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 47\u201351. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1192\/bjp.176.1.47.","journal-title":"The British Journal of Psychiatry"},{"key":"3488_CR51","unstructured":"Wiley (2018). Bringing greater transparency to peer review: Wiley and Clarivate analytics partner to launch innovative open peer review, 13 September 2018, https:\/\/newsroom.wiley.com\/press-release\/bringing-greater-transparency-peer-review-wiley-and-clarivate-analytics-partner-launch."},{"key":"3488_CR52","unstructured":"Wiley (2020). A list of participating OPR journals is referred at https:\/\/authorservices.wiley.com\/Reviewers\/journal-reviewers\/what-is-peer-review\/index.html (direct link: https:\/\/authorservices.wiley.com\/asset\/photos\/reviewers.html\/Journals%20Included%20in%20Transparent%20Peer%20Review%20Pilot.xlsx)."},{"key":"3488_CR53","unstructured":"Wolfram, D., Wang, P., & Park, H. (2019). Open Peer Review: The current landscape and emerging models. Proceedings of the 17th International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference. (pp. 387\u2013398)."}],"container-title":["Scientometrics"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s11192-020-03488-4.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s11192-020-03488-4\/fulltext.html","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s11192-020-03488-4.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2021,5,25]],"date-time":"2021-05-25T23:15:07Z","timestamp":1621984507000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s11192-020-03488-4"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2020,5,26]]},"references-count":52,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2020,11]]}},"alternative-id":["3488"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11192-020-03488-4","relation":{},"ISSN":["0138-9130","1588-2861"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0138-9130","type":"print"},{"value":"1588-2861","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2020,5,26]]},"assertion":[{"value":"10 December 2019","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"26 May 2020","order":2,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Compliance with ethical standards"}},{"value":"All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Conflicts of interest"}}]}}