Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. Except for Lev, the back numbers of the other five journals are open access. (https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/).

  6. In these journals, there are occasionally papers written in foreign languages.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. http://webcatplus.nii.ac.jp/.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., & Dióspatonyi, I. (2005). The journal gatekeepers of major publishing houses of core science journals. Scientometrics, 64(2), 113–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goertz, G., & Mahoney, J. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Katayama, H. (1999). Nihon Hikaku Seiji Gakkai no sousetsu (Establishment of Japan association for comparative politics). Ajia Keizai, 40(1), 81–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maruyama, M. (1967). Atogaki (Afterword). Nenpō Seijigaku, 18, 203–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Opthof, T., & Leydesdorff, L. (2011). A comment to the paper by Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 87, 467–481, 2011. Scientometrics, 88(3), 1011–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, D. A. M. (2018). Author gender and editorial outcomes at Political Behavior. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(4), 866–869.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Samuels, D. (2018). Gender and editorial outcomes at Comparative Political Studies. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(4), 854–858.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigelman, L. (2006). The coevolution of American political science and the “American Political Science Review”. American Political Science Review, 100(49), 463–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. (2010). The economics of science. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation. Dordrecht: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P., & Levin, S. (1992). Striking the mother lode in science: The importance of age, place, and time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugawara, T. (2010). “Amerika ka” suru nihon no seijigaku (“Americanizing” Japanese political science). Shisō Chizu, 5, 381–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugihara, S. (1997). Zoku Nihon no Keizai Zasshi (The economic journals in Japan, continued). Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Hyōron Sha.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2017). Measuring research: What everyone needs to know. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teele, D., & Thelen, K. (2017). Gender in the journals: Publication patterns in political science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 50(2), 433–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenopir, C. (2004). Online scholarly journals: How many? Library Journal, 129(2), 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamakawa, K. (1987). Nihon no seijigaku (Political science in Japan). Kansai Daigaku Hougaku Ronshū, 37(2–3), 477–499.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daisuke Sakai.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author is a member of the JPSA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03197-7

Keywords

Navigation