{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,26]],"date-time":"2026-04-26T06:56:59Z","timestamp":1777186619741,"version":"3.51.4"},"reference-count":29,"publisher":"MDPI AG","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2018,12,24]],"date-time":"2018-12-24T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1545609600000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Publications"],"abstract":"<jats:p>The aim of this study was to investigate the opinion of authors on the overall quality and effectiveness of reviewers\u2019 contributions to reviewed papers. We employed an on-line survey of thirteen journals which publish articles in the field of life, social or technological sciences. Responses received from 193 authors were analysed using a mixed-effects model in order to determine factors deemed the most important in the authors\u2019 evaluation of the reviewers. Qualitative content analysis of the responses to open questions was performed as well. The mixed-effects model revealed that the authors\u2019 assessment of the competence of referees strongly depended on the final editorial decision and that the speed of the review process was influential as well. In Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) analysis on seven questions detailing authors\u2019 opinions, perception of review speed remained a significant predictor of the assessment. In addition, both the perceived competence and helpfulness of the reviewers significantly and positively affected the authors\u2019 evaluation. New models were used to re-check the value of these two factors and it was confirmed that the assessment of the competence of reviewers strongly depended on the final editorial decision.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.3390\/publications7010001","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2018,12,24]],"date-time":"2018-12-24T10:37:49Z","timestamp":1545647869000},"page":"1","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/mdpi_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":11,"title":["Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author\u2019s Perspective"],"prefix":"10.3390","volume":"7","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-4985-1642","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Ivana","family":"Drvenica","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Institute for Medical Research, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-2837-0137","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Giangiacomo","family":"Bravo","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Social Studies, Centre for Data Intensive Sciences and Applications, Linnaeus University, 35195 V\u00e4xj\u00f6, Sweden"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Lucija","family":"Vejmelka","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Social Work, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-3122-8342","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Aleksandar","family":"Dekanski","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Electrochemistry, Institute of Chemistry, Technology and Metallurgy, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-2042-0056","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Olgica","family":"Nedi\u0107","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Institute for the Application of Nuclear Energy (INEP), University of Belgrade, 11080 Belgrade, Serbia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"1968","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2018,12,24]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"35","DOI":"10.1007\/s11948-997-0015-5","article-title":"Evidence for the Effectiveness of Peer Review","volume":"3","author":"Fletcher","year":"1997","journal-title":"Sci. Eng. Ethics"},{"key":"ref_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"657","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.328.7441.657","article-title":"Improving Peer Review: Who\u2019s Responsible?","volume":"328","author":"Davidoff","year":"2004","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"ref_3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2080","DOI":"10.2146\/ajhp170190","article-title":"Improving Peer Review: What Reviewers Can Do","volume":"74","author":"DiDomenico","year":"2017","journal-title":"Am. J. Health. Syst. Pharm."},{"key":"ref_4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"646","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e31818425d4","article-title":"Author Perception of Peer Review","volume":"112","author":"Gibson","year":"2008","journal-title":"Obstet. Gynecol."},{"key":"ref_5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"501","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-017-2518-4","article-title":"Scientometrics of Peer Review","volume":"113","author":"Squazzoni","year":"2017","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"key":"ref_6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"633","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-017-2310-5","article-title":"Duration and Quality of the Peer Review Process: The Author\u2019s Perspective","volume":"113","author":"Huisman","year":"2017","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"key":"ref_7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"282","DOI":"10.1038\/438282d","article-title":"Peer-Review System Could Gain from Author Feedback","volume":"438","author":"Korngreen","year":"2005","journal-title":"Nature"},{"key":"ref_8","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2790","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.287.21.2790","article-title":"Author Perception of Peer Review: Impact of Review Quality and Acceptance on Satisfaction","volume":"287","author":"Weber","year":"2002","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"key":"ref_9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"491","DOI":"10.2298\/CICEQ160328033D","article-title":"Peer-Review Process in Journals Dealing with Chemistry and Related Subjects Published in Serbia","volume":"22","author":"Dekanski","year":"2016","journal-title":"Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q."},{"key":"ref_10","unstructured":"(2018, February 28). It\u2019s Not the Size that Matters. Available online: https:\/\/publons.com\/blog\/its-not-the-size-that-matters\/."},{"key":"ref_11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"347","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-015-1704-5","article-title":"Quantifying the Quality of Peer Reviewers through Zipf\u2019s Law","volume":"106","author":"Ausloos","year":"2016","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"key":"ref_12","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"12708","DOI":"10.1073\/pnas.1707323114","article-title":"Reviewer Bias in Single\u2014Versus Double-Blind Peer Review","volume":"114","author":"Tomkins","year":"2017","journal-title":"Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA"},{"key":"ref_13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Fiala, D., Havrilov\u00e1, C., Dostal, M., Parali\u010d, J., Fiala, D., Havrilov\u00e1, C., Dostal, M., and Parali\u010d, J. (2016). Editorial Board Membership, Time to Accept, and the Effect on the Citation Counts of Journal Articles. Publications, 4.","DOI":"10.3390\/publications4030021"},{"key":"ref_14","first-page":"21","article-title":"Personal Attributes of Authors and Reviewers, Social Bias and the Outcomes of Peer Review: A Case Study","volume":"4","author":"Walker","year":"2015","journal-title":"F1000Research"},{"key":"ref_15","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2340","DOI":"10.1002\/asi.23317","article-title":"Imperfect Referees: Reducing the Impact of Multiple Biases in Peer Review","volume":"66","author":"Zhao","year":"2015","journal-title":"J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol."},{"key":"ref_16","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"360","DOI":"10.1073\/pnas.1418218112","article-title":"Measuring the Effectiveness of Scientific Gatekeeping","volume":"112","author":"Siler","year":"2015","journal-title":"Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA"},{"key":"ref_17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"259","DOI":"10.1515\/libri-2013-0021","article-title":"Multidimensional Journal Evaluation of PLoS ONE","volume":"63","author":"Fein","year":"2013","journal-title":"Libri"},{"key":"ref_18","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"285","DOI":"10.1016\/j.aos.2008.08.003","article-title":"Publishing in Accounting Journals: A Fair Game?","volume":"34","author":"Moizer","year":"2009","journal-title":"Account. Organ. Soc."},{"key":"ref_19","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"72","DOI":"10.2533\/chimia.2010.72","article-title":"How Long Is the Peer Review Process for Journal Manuscripts? A Case Study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition","volume":"64","author":"Bornmann","year":"2010","journal-title":"Chimia"},{"key":"ref_20","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"439","DOI":"10.1016\/j.arcmed.2003.07.001","article-title":"Peer Review Time: How Late Is Late in a Small Medical Journal?","volume":"34","author":"Hren","year":"2003","journal-title":"Arch. Med. Res."},{"key":"ref_21","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"211","DOI":"10.3138\/jsp.44.3.001","article-title":"A Three-Decade History of the Duration of Peer Review","volume":"44","author":"Lyman","year":"2013","journal-title":"J. Sch. Publ."},{"key":"ref_22","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"967","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-015-1827-8","article-title":"Why the Referees\u2019 Reports I Receive as an Editor Are so Much Better than the Reports I Receive as an Author?","volume":"106","year":"2016","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"key":"ref_23","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1377","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-016-2079-y","article-title":"Authors and reviewers who suffer from confirmatory bias","volume":"109","year":"2016","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"key":"ref_24","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1330","DOI":"10.1177\/01461672952112010","article-title":"The multiply motivated self","volume":"21","author":"Sedikides","year":"1995","journal-title":"Person. Soc. Psychol. Bull."},{"key":"ref_25","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"345","DOI":"10.1007\/s12144-011-9121-2","article-title":"Emotion and the Self-Serving Bias","volume":"30","author":"Coleman","year":"2011","journal-title":"Curr. Psychol."},{"key":"ref_26","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Gelman, A., and Hill, J. (2006). Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel\/Hierarchical Models, Cambridge University Press.","DOI":"10.1017\/CBO9780511790942"},{"key":"ref_27","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"261","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-015-1527-4","article-title":"Too Many Journals? Towards a Theory of Repeated Rejections and Ultimate Acceptance","volume":"103","author":"Oosterhaven","year":"2015","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"key":"ref_28","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Starck, J.M. (2017). Scientific Peer Review, Springer Spektrum.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-658-19915-9"},{"key":"ref_29","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"465","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-017-2489-5","article-title":"Difficulty of Recruiting Reviewers Predicts Review Scores and Editorial Decisions at Six Journals of Ecology and Evolution","volume":"113","author":"Fox","year":"2017","journal-title":"Scientometrics"}],"container-title":["Publications"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2304-6775\/7\/1\/1\/pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,11]],"date-time":"2025-10-11T15:35:51Z","timestamp":1760196951000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2304-6775\/7\/1\/1"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2018,12,24]]},"references-count":29,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2019,3]]}},"alternative-id":["publications7010001"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/publications7010001","relation":{},"ISSN":["2304-6775"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2304-6775","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2018,12,24]]}}}