Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 121, Issue 1, pp 65–80 | Cite as

Who is peer reviewed? Comparing publication patterns of peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed papers in Japanese political science

  • Daisuke SakaiEmail author
Article

Abstract

Until recently, some fields of social sciences and humanities have developed without peer-review (PR) systems. Since the introduction of the PR system, non-peer-reviewed studies have been widely published and different publication patterns have emerged between peer-reviewed (PRd) and non-peer-reviewed (NPRd) articles. This study examines the patterns of PRd and NPRd papers in political science journals in Japan. According to this study’s analysis, PRd papers are mainly published by young researchers in their thirties. As researchers age, the proportion of PRd papers they publish decreases. The life cycle pattern of a researcher is structured regardless of the journals or the research methods. If the generalized norms and patterns of behavior related to PR are referred to as the PR culture, then there is the PR culture in this field that determines, “PR is a young person’s game.” Here, the PR system is expected not only to evaluate research content but also to assess newcomers in the field.

Keywords

Peer review Publication patterns Age Political science Japan 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the referees for useful comments.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author is a member of the JPSA.

References

  1. Benjamin F. J., & Bruce A. W. (2011). Age dynamics in scientific creativity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(47), 18910–18914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biagioli, M. (2003). Peer review. In J. L. Heilbron (Ed.), The Oxford companion to the history of modern science (pp. 624–625). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bianchi, F., Grimaldo, F., Bravo, G., & Squazzoni, F. (2018). The peer review game: An agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures. Scientometrics, 116(3), 1401–1420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braun, T., & Dióspatonyi, I. (2005). The journal gatekeepers of major publishing houses of core science journals. Scientometrics, 64(2), 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, N. E., & Samuels, D. (2018). Gender in the journals, continued: Evidence from five political science journals. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(4), 847–848.Google Scholar
  6. Dondio, P., Casnici, N., Grimaldo, F., Gilbert, N., & Squazzoni, F. (2019). The “invisible hand” of peer review: The implications of author-referee networks on peer review in a scholarly journal. Journal of Informetrics, 13(2), 708–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goertz, G., & Mahoney, J. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hicks, D. M. (2004). The four literatures of social science. In H. Moed, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 473–496). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Jefferson, T., Rudin, M., Brodney Folse, S., & Davidoff, F. (2007). Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 18(2), MR000016.Google Scholar
  10. Katayama, H. (1999). Nihon Hikaku Seiji Gakkai no sousetsu (Establishment of Japan association for comparative politics). Ajia Keizai, 40(1), 81–85.Google Scholar
  11. König, T., & Ropers, G. (2018). Gender and editorial outcomes at the American Political Science Review. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(4), 849–853.Google Scholar
  12. Kulczycki, E., Engels, T. C. E., Pölönen, J., Bruun, K., Dušková, M., Guns, R., et al. (2018). Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: Evidence from eight European countries. Scientometrics, 116(1), 463–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Maruyama, M. (1967). Atogaki (Afterword). Nenpō Seijigaku, 18, 203–205.Google Scholar
  14. Matsumoto, M. (2013). Chi no bundanka to daigaku no yakuwari (The division of knowledge and the role of the university). In T. Hirota, et al. (Eds.), Gurobarizeshon, shakai hendou to daigaku (Globalization, social change and universities) (pp. 73–110). Tokyo: Iwnami Shoten.Google Scholar
  15. Nedal, D. K., & Nexon, D. H. (2018). Gender in the international studies quarterly review process. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(4), 859–865.Google Scholar
  16. Opthof, T., & Leydesdorff, L. (2011). A comment to the paper by Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 87, 467–481, 2011. Scientometrics, 88(3), 1011–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Peterson, D. A. M. (2018). Author gender and editorial outcomes at Political Behavior. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(4), 866–869.Google Scholar
  18. Sakai, D. (2017). Nihon seiji gakushi no futatsu no tenkan (Two transitions in Japanese political science history: A citation analysis of political science textbooks). Nenpō Seijigaku, 2017(2), 295–317.Google Scholar
  19. Samuels, D. (2018). Gender and editorial outcomes at Comparative Political Studies. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(4), 854–858.Google Scholar
  20. Sigelman, L. (2006). The coevolution of American political science and the “American Political Science Review”. American Political Science Review, 100(49), 463–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stephan, P. (2010). The economics of science. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation. Dordrecht: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  22. Stephan, P., & Levin, S. (1992). Striking the mother lode in science: The importance of age, place, and time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Sugawara, T. (2010). “Amerika ka” suru nihon no seijigaku (“Americanizing” Japanese political science). Shisō Chizu, 5, 381–405.Google Scholar
  24. Sugihara, S. (1997). Zoku Nihon no Keizai Zasshi (The economic journals in Japan, continued). Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Hyōron Sha.Google Scholar
  25. Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2017). Measuring research: What everyone needs to know. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Teele, D., & Thelen, K. (2017). Gender in the journals: Publication patterns in political science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 50(2), 433–447.Google Scholar
  27. Tenopir, C. (2004). Online scholarly journals: How many? Library Journal, 129(2), 32.Google Scholar
  28. Tudor, C. L., & Yashar, D. J. (2018). Gender and the editorial process: World politics, 2007–2017. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(4), 870–880.Google Scholar
  29. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2006). Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 67(3), 491–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, S. M., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2011). On the correlation between bibliometric indicators and peer review: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff. Scientometrics, 88, 1017–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yamakawa, K. (1987). Nihon no seijigaku (Political science in Japan). Kansai Daigaku Hougaku Ronshū, 37(2–3), 477–499.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations