Enregistré dans:
| Auteurs principaux: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Publié: |
2025
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.16276 |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
| _version_ | 1866914000929816576 |
|---|---|
| author | Stephen, Dimity Schniedermann, Alexander Lovakov, Andrey Schmidt, Marion Ottaviani, Matteo Sorgatz, Nikita Romero, Roberto Cruz Möller, Torger Aman, Valeria Stahlschmidt, Stephan |
| author_facet | Stephen, Dimity Schniedermann, Alexander Lovakov, Andrey Schmidt, Marion Ottaviani, Matteo Sorgatz, Nikita Romero, Roberto Cruz Möller, Torger Aman, Valeria Stahlschmidt, Stephan |
| contents | The recent surge in bibliometric studies published has been accompanied by increasing diversity in the completeness of reporting these studies' details, affecting reliability, reproducibility, and robustness. Our study systematises the reporting of bibliometric research using open peer reviews. We examined 182 peer reviews of 85 bibliometric studies published in library and information science (LIS) journals and conference proceedings, and non-LIS journals. We extracted 968 reviewer comments and inductively classified them into 11 broad thematic categories and 68 sub-categories, determining that reviewers largely focus on the completeness and clarity of reporting data, methods, and results. We subsequently derived 49 recommendations for the details authors should report and compared them with the GLOBAL, PRIBA, and BIBLIO reporting guidelines to identify (dis)similarities in content. Our recommendations addressed 60-80% of the guidelines' items, while the guidelines covered 45-65% of our recommendations. Our recommendations provided greater range and specificity, but did not incorporate the functions of guidelines beyond addressing academic content. We argue that peer reviews provide valuable information for the development of future guidelines. Further, our recommendations can be read as the implicit community standards for reporting bibliometric studies and could be used by authors to aid complete and accurate reporting of their manuscripts. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2508_16276 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Implicit reporting standards in bibliometric research: what can reviewers' comments tell us about reporting completeness? Stephen, Dimity Schniedermann, Alexander Lovakov, Andrey Schmidt, Marion Ottaviani, Matteo Sorgatz, Nikita Romero, Roberto Cruz Möller, Torger Aman, Valeria Stahlschmidt, Stephan Digital Libraries The recent surge in bibliometric studies published has been accompanied by increasing diversity in the completeness of reporting these studies' details, affecting reliability, reproducibility, and robustness. Our study systematises the reporting of bibliometric research using open peer reviews. We examined 182 peer reviews of 85 bibliometric studies published in library and information science (LIS) journals and conference proceedings, and non-LIS journals. We extracted 968 reviewer comments and inductively classified them into 11 broad thematic categories and 68 sub-categories, determining that reviewers largely focus on the completeness and clarity of reporting data, methods, and results. We subsequently derived 49 recommendations for the details authors should report and compared them with the GLOBAL, PRIBA, and BIBLIO reporting guidelines to identify (dis)similarities in content. Our recommendations addressed 60-80% of the guidelines' items, while the guidelines covered 45-65% of our recommendations. Our recommendations provided greater range and specificity, but did not incorporate the functions of guidelines beyond addressing academic content. We argue that peer reviews provide valuable information for the development of future guidelines. Further, our recommendations can be read as the implicit community standards for reporting bibliometric studies and could be used by authors to aid complete and accurate reporting of their manuscripts. |
| title | Implicit reporting standards in bibliometric research: what can reviewers' comments tell us about reporting completeness? |
| topic | Digital Libraries |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.16276 |