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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
There is no cross-sectoral survey in Japan on when the peer review system began. Sugihara (1997) is the only one to report that there is no nation-wide economics journal with a referee system in Japan.
There are other important journals besides these six, such as Gyōsei Kenkyū Nenpō (Annals of the Japanese Society for Public Administration), but they were omitted from this study.
The American Political Science Review, the leading journal of political science, was first published in 1906. Submissions continued to grow. By 1925, editor claimed to be accepting “not more than one article in four” (Sigelman 2006: 463). In 1966 at the latest, the committee announced that it would anonymously evaluate manuscripts submitted for publication.
Since 1984, however, there have been provisions in IR stipulating "To ensure equal opportunity for all members" and that publications should be published no more than once every 2 years.
Except for Lev, the back numbers of the other five journals are open access. (https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/).
In these journals, there are occasionally papers written in foreign languages.
In this study, we excluded the investigation of author affiliations. In most of the past literature, it was not common in Japanese political journals to describe the affiliations of authors. For example, it was not until 2006 that the AJPSA began to describe author affiliations. It is important to examine an author's home institution, but that will be a future task.
At one point the IR was seeking authors. However, would-be authors did not submit completed manuscripts, rather only sent the title and outline of the subject to be written to the editor, who then nominated authors. These articles were not treated as PRd because they are essentially nominated authors.
One journal claimed that the editorial department had conducted a "peer review" of a featured article written by an editor's designated author. This article may indeed have been included under the broader description of "peer review." However, because it had not gone through a submission and institutional review process, it was treated as a NPRd article in this study.
It is now common for external reviewers to participate in PR. Therefore, this requirement should be added to the definition of PR. However, our investigation could not determine when reviews began to be conducted by external reviewers. This is because the guidelines (especially of the past) often do not explain whether the reviewers are external or internal. In addition, this study aims to clarify the structure of the scientific community by focusing on whether a paper is a submission or not. Therefore, external reviewers were removed from the definition of PR.
Sugawara (2010) refers to the bias of the PR system and argues that papers using quantitative analysis are more likely to pass PR. In order to test his claims, we have to look at publication rates (publication/submission) by method. At least in the 1990 s, however, the proportion of PRd research was high.
Authors who had written for several journals were assigned to several groups.
References
Benjamin F. J., & Bruce A. W. (2011). Age dynamics in scientific creativity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(47), 18910–18914.
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.
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.
Braun, T., & Dióspatonyi, I. (2005). The journal gatekeepers of major publishing houses of core science journals. Scientometrics, 64(2), 113–120.
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.
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.
Goertz, G., & Mahoney, J. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
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.
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.
Katayama, H. (1999). Nihon Hikaku Seiji Gakkai no sousetsu (Establishment of Japan association for comparative politics). Ajia Keizai, 40(1), 81–85.
König, T., & Ropers, G. (2018). Gender and editorial outcomes at the American Political Science Review. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(4), 849–853.
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.
Maruyama, M. (1967). Atogaki (Afterword). Nenpō Seijigaku, 18, 203–205.
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.
Nedal, D. K., & Nexon, D. H. (2018). Gender in the international studies quarterly review process. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(4), 859–865.
Opthof, T., & Leydesdorff, L. (2011). A comment to the paper by Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 87, 467–481, 2011. Scientometrics, 88(3), 1011–1016.
Peterson, D. A. M. (2018). Author gender and editorial outcomes at Political Behavior. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(4), 866–869.
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.
Samuels, D. (2018). Gender and editorial outcomes at Comparative Political Studies. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(4), 854–858.
Sigelman, L. (2006). The coevolution of American political science and the “American Political Science Review”. American Political Science Review, 100(49), 463–478.
Stephan, P. (2010). The economics of science. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation. Dordrecht: Elsevier.
Stephan, P., & Levin, S. (1992). Striking the mother lode in science: The importance of age, place, and time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sugawara, T. (2010). “Amerika ka” suru nihon no seijigaku (“Americanizing” Japanese political science). Shisō Chizu, 5, 381–405.
Sugihara, S. (1997). Zoku Nihon no Keizai Zasshi (The economic journals in Japan, continued). Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Hyōron Sha.
Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2017). Measuring research: What everyone needs to know. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Teele, D., & Thelen, K. (2017). Gender in the journals: Publication patterns in political science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 50(2), 433–447.
Tenopir, C. (2004). Online scholarly journals: How many? Library Journal, 129(2), 32.
Tudor, C. L., & Yashar, D. J. (2018). Gender and the editorial process: World politics, 2007–2017. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(4), 870–880.
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.
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.
Yamakawa, K. (1987). Nihon no seijigaku (Political science in Japan). Kansai Daigaku Hougaku Ronshū, 37(2–3), 477–499.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the referees for useful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author is a member of the JPSA.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sakai, D. Who is peer reviewed? Comparing publication patterns of peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed papers in Japanese political science. Scientometrics 121, 65–80 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03197-7
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03197-7