ORCID Profile
0000-0002-7787-6081
Current Organisation
German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Related Links
Publications
Peer reviewers equally critique theory, method, and writing, with limited effect on the final content of accepted manuscripts
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 09-04-2022
DOI: 10.1007/S11192-022-04357-Y
Abstract: The primary aims of peer review are to detect flaws and deficiencies in the design and interpretation of studies, and ensure the clarity and quality of their presentation. However, it has been questioned whether peer review fulfils this function. Studies have highlighted a stronger focus of reviewers on critiquing methodological aspects of studies and the quality of writing in biomedical sciences, with less focus on theoretical grounding. In contrast, reviewers in the social sciences appear more concerned with theoretical underpinnings. These studies also found the effect of peer review on manuscripts’ content to be variable, but generally modest and positive. I qualitatively analysed 1430 peer reviewers’ comments for a s le of 40 social science preprint-publication pairs to identify the key foci of reviewers’ comments. I then quantified the effect of peer review on manuscripts by examining differences between the preprint and published versions using the normalised Levenshtein distance, cosine similarity, and word count ratios for titles, abstracts, document sections and full-texts. I also examined changes in references used between versions and linked changes to reviewers’ comments. Reviewers’ comments were nearly equally split between issues of methodology (30.7%), theory (30.0%), and writing quality (29.2%). Titles, abstracts, and the semantic content of documents remained similar, although publications were typically longer than preprints. Two-thirds of citations were unchanged, 20.9% were added during review and 13.1% were removed. These findings indicate reviewers equally attended to the theoretical and methodological details and communication style of manuscripts, although the effect on quantitative measures of the manuscripts was limited.
Medical articles in questionable journals are less impactful than those in non-questionable journals but still extensively cited
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 17-06-2023
DOI: 10.1007/S11192-023-04763-W
Abstract: A key feature of questionable journals is a lack of adequate peer review of their articles. Content of thus unknown quality may be utilised by unsuspecting practitioners or incorporated into peer-reviewed research, becoming legitimised. It is therefore necessary to examine the citation patterns of articles in questionable journals to understand their impact and reach. Similar research has tended to focus on authors from low- and middle-income countries. As such, this study investigates the profile and impact of research in questionable journals by authors in Germany. Questionable journals were identified by matching journals with articles by authors at German institutions from Dimensions to Cabell’s Predatory Reports. Metadata for these articles and a comparative s le of articles in non-questionable journals were extracted from Dimensions and the 3 year citations, self-citations, uncited rate, profile of co-authoring and citing countries, and institution type of authors were compared between groups. Nearly 600 articles in 88 questionable journals were published by German authors in 2010–2020. Three-quarters were in the medical and health sciences. Medical articles in questionable journals received significantly fewer citations than similar articles in non-questionable journals. However, articles in questionable journals were still extensively cited in 1736 primarily non-questionable journals. Self-citations accounted for only 12% of these citations. Authors from non-university medical facilities were over-represented in articles in questionable journals. System-level changes are necessary to eliminate questionable journals and shift high-quality research into reputable venues.
Using microsimulation to estimate the future health and economic costs of salmonellosis under climate change in Central Queensland, Australia
Publisher: Environmental Health Perspectives
Date: 21-12-2017
DOI: 10.1289/EHP1370
Effect of temperature and precipitation on salmonellosis cases in South-East Queensland, Australia: an observational study
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 02-2016
From indexation policies through citation networks to normalized citation impacts: Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions as varying resonance chambers
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 12-03-2022
DOI: 10.1007/S11192-022-04309-6
Abstract: Dimensions was introduced as an alternative bibliometric database to the well-established Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus, however all three databases have fundamental differences in coverage and content, resultant from their owners’ indexation philosophies. In light of these differences, we explore here, using a citation network analysis and assessment of normalized citation impact of overlapping publications indexed in all three databases, whether the three databases offer structurally different perspectives of the bibliometric landscape or if they are essentially homogenous substitutes. Our citation network analysis of core and exclusive 2016–2018 publications revealed a large set of core publications indexed in all three databases that are highly self-referential. In comparison, each database selected a set of exclusive publications that appeared to hold similarly low levels of relevance to the core set and to one another, with slightly more internal communication between exclusive publications in Scopus and Dimensions than WoS. Our comparison of normalized citations for 41,848 publications indexed in all three databases found that German sectors were valuated as more impactful in Scopus and Dimensions compared to WoS, particularly for sectors with an applied research focus. We conclude that the databases do present structurally different perspectives, although Scopus and Dimensions with their additional circle of applied research vary more from the more base research-focused WoS than they do from one another.
Comparison of the citations of German medical science articles in questionable and non-questionable journals
Publisher: Zenodo
Date: 2022
A study of referencing changes in preprint-publication pairs across multiple fields
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2022
Distinguishing articles in questionable and non-questionable journals using quantitative indicators associated with quality
Publisher: International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators
Date: 19-05-2023
DOI: 10.55835/644245CB8E703DDB4DC07EDA
Abstract: This ongoing study investigates the viability of distinguishing articles in questionable journals (QJs) from those in non-QJs on the basis of quantitative indicators typically associated with quality, and what can be deduced about the quality of articles in QJs based on the differences observed. I contrast the length of abstracts and full-texts, prevalence of spelling errors, text readability, number of references and citations, and other characteristics of 1,714 articles from 31 QJs, 1,691 articles from 16 journals indexed in Web of Science (WoS), and 1,900 articles from 45 non-WoS/non-QJs, all in the field of psychology. Initial results indicate that there are differences between QJs and non-QJ s les, however these are relatively small, perhaps indicating that QJs may not substantially differ from non-QJs on these quantitative indicators of quality. However, I intend to use additional analyses to further explore any potential differences.
Related Organisations
German Centre For Higher Education Research And Science Studies
Location: Germany
Related Funding Activities
No related grants have been discovered for Dimity Stephen.