Search results

This study reviews the existing literature on the U.S. peer review system and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection system to assess our knowledge of audit regulation. The traditional self-regulatory system of the accounting profession came to an end, in 2002, when the PCAOB was established to oversee the audit firms of publicly traded companies. This paper contributes to the controversial debate about self-regulation versus independent regulation by analyzing, categorizing, and comparing the research findings on the peer review system and the PCAOB system along three dimensions: the validity of peer reviews and PCAOB inspections, the recognition of reviews and inspections by decision-makers (e.g., investors, bankers, committees), and the effect of reviews and inspections on audit quality. Synthesizing the research on the regulatory regimes suggests that the notion of external quality control, both through peer reviews and government inspections, is positively linked with an improvement of audit quality. At the same time, the analysis indicates that external users do not seem to recognise peer review and PCAOB reports as very useful instruments for decision-making, which is in line with an identified rather skeptical perception of the audit profession on reviews and inspections. Overall, this study reveals that although the academic literature on peer review and PCAOB inspection is extensive it has not produced definitive conclusions concerning various aspects of audit regulation. This paper shows how this blurred picture is due to conflicting research findings, the dominance of the quantitative research paradigm, and unchallenged assumptions within the literature, and concludes by proposing research opportunities for the future.

In editorial peer review systems of journals, one does not always accept the best papers. Due to different human perceptions, the evaluation of papers by peer review (for a journal) can be different from the impact that a paper has after its publication (measured by number of citations received) in this or another journal. This system (and corresponding problems) is similar to the information retrieval process in a documentary system. Also there, one retrieves not always the most relevant documents for a certain topic. This is so because the topic is described in the command language of the documentary system and this command does not always completely cover the “real topic” that one wants to describe. This paper aims to address this issue.

Based on this statement classical information retrieval evaluation techniques were applied to the evaluation of peer review systems. Basic in such an information retrieval evaluation are the notions of precision and recall and the precision‐recall‐curve. Such notions are introduced here for the evaluation of peer review systems.

The analogues of precision and recall are defined and their curve constructed based on peer review data from the journal Angewandte Chemie – International Edition and on citation impact data of accepted papers by this journal or rejected but published elsewhere papers. It is concluded that, due to the imperfect peer review process (based on human evaluation), if we want to publish a high amount of qualified papers (the ones we seek), several non‐qualified papers should also be accepted.

The authors conclude that, due to the imperfect peer review process (based on human evaluation), if we want to publish a high amount of qualified papers (the ones we seek), one will also accept several non‐qualified papers.

The Internet provides researchers with exciting new opportunities for finding information and communicating with each other. However the process of peer review is something of a Cinderella in all this. Peer review in biomedical disciplines is still largely carried out using hard copy and the postal system even if the authors’ text files are used for the production of the paper or electronic journal. This article introduces one of the Electronic Libraries (eLib) projects, funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). The project – Electronic Submission and Peer Review (ESPERE) – is examining the cultural and technical problems of implementing an electronic peer review process for biomedical academics and learned society publishers. The paper describes preliminary work in discovering the issues involved and describes interviews with seven learned society publishers, analysis of a questionnaire sent to 200 editorial board members and a focus group of five biomedical academics. Academics and learned publishers were enthusiastic about electronic peer review and the possibilities which it offers for a less costly, more streamlined and more effective process. Use of the Internet makes collaborative and interactive refereeing a practical option and allows academics from countries all over the world to take part.

This paper presents a review of the state of the art on the application of blockchain and smart contracts to the peer-review process of scientific papers. The paper seeks to analyse how the main characteristics of the existing blockchain solutions in this field to detect opportunities for the improvement of future applications.

A systematic review of the literature on the subject was carried out in three databases recognized by the research community (IEEE Xplore, Scopus and Web of Science) and the Frontiers in Blockchain journal. A total of 1,967 articles were initially found, and after the exclusion process, the 26 remaining articles were classified according to the following dimensions: System Type, Open Access, Review Type, Reviewer Incentive, Token Economy, Blockchain Access, Blockchain Identification, Blockchain Used, Paper Storage, Anonymity and Maturity of the solution.

Results show that the solutions are normally concerned on offering incentives to the reviewers' work (often monetary). Other common general preferences among the solutions are the adoption of open reviews, the use of Ethereum, the implementation of publishing ecosystems and the use of InterPlanetary File System to the storage of the papers.

There are currently no studies covering the main aspects of blockchain solutions in the field of scientific peer review. The present study provides an overall review of the topic, summarizing important information on the current research and helping new adopters to develop solutions grounded on the existing literature.

The key purpose of this study is to gain an insight into the quality of the scholarly publishing and refereeing system used by Emerald’s Library and Information Science (LIS) journals from the perspectives of the Arab authors who are publishing in this wide-ranging database. It also tries to provide helpful guidance for authors to fit their authorship for publication.

Of the total 3,846 papers published in Emerald’s LIS journals in the past five years (the beginning of 2011 to the end of 2015), there were only 81 papers (research/technical/conceptual papers and case studies only) authored by Arabs, representing 2.11 per cent of the whole productivity in the discipline of the LIS in Emerald in this period. Corresponding authors (mostly first authors) (n = 73) were contacted to answer the questionnaire of the study. Five of those 73 authors could not be reached because of the lack of validity of their e-mails. Out of the remaining authors (n = 68), 47 returned their valid questionnaires, representing 69.1 per cent of the total number of the Arab authors.

This study revealed that the Arab male authors dominated (78.7 per cent) the publishing in Emerald’s LIS journals in the past five years. Two-thirds of the Arab authors are aged between 36 to 45 years (mostly males with doctoral degrees), followed by those authors (17 per cent) who are aged between 46 to 50 years (mostly males with doctoral degrees) and by those authors (12.8 per cent) aged between 31 to 35 years (all are males and half of them hold a doctorate). The study also found that there was a direct proportionality between the Arab authors’ research experience with the history of publishing in Emerald’s LIS journals because the more research experience they have, the greater the number of their research history of publishing in Emerald. Assistant Professors (44.7 per cent) were found to be the group most frequently publishing in Emeralds’ LIS journals with research experience ranging between 11 and 20 years (mainly with a publishing history of five years), followed by lectures with research experience ranging between 1 and 20 years (mostly with a publishing history of five years) and then associate professors with research experience ranging between 11 and 20 years (mostly with a publishing history of ten years). The findings also found that most Arab authors (80.9 per cent) publishing in Emerald’s LIS journals preferred the sole or single authorship. The co-authorship or co-authored works were not much preferred by many of them. A large number (87.2 per cent) of the Arab authors, who are mainly described as experts and advanced authors in using the Emerald refereeing system, see this system, at least, as good. Regarding the reasons/factors to submit articles to Emerald’s LIS journals, this study revealed that the availability of papers in electronic formats, the journal’s impact factor, the association with the research area, the academic coverage of the journal, abstracting and indexing services, the availability in hard copy, the speed of reviewing, the size of readership, the ease of acceptance and the standing of the editorial board were the most significant reasons and factors to submit articles papers for publication in Emerald. The Arab authors in this study have shown considerable positive attitude and perceptions towards the publishing in Emerald’s LIS journals because all of them, at least, agree that publishing in Emerald can increase the speed of finding information and reduce the use of papers. A very large number of them also showed that such publishing may also help create a wider spread, build confidence, be convenient, secure credibility and be objective. Compared to their positive attitude and perceptions towards the publishing in Emerald’s LIS journals, Arab authors had little negative feelings about the publishing in these journals. A few of them (8.5 per cent) have shown a considerable concern about the time it takes in reviewing their articles because they reported that such publishing requires a long time for the peer review process, and it also needs long communications with the editorial staff; this may affect negatively on the time of the research topic. Not being their first language, a few Arab authors (8.5 per cent) have also shown a considerable concern about the use of English being the publishing language in Emerald, as it requires certain skills needed not only to publish their articles but also to deal with the Emerald system and communicate with editorial staff. Overall, this small percentage did not affect the rest of the authors who described their concerns about this obstacle as modest to some extent. Although there is a lot of enthusiasm for publication in Emerald showed by the Arab authors, there have been also some concerns expressed by them towards that goal. A modest number of the Arab authors suggested that the lack of language skills needed for publishing in Emerald, followed by the lack of patience needed to wait for issuing papers, the technical problems related to the system and its interface and the lack of technical skills needed for publishing, as well as the time needed to be online, were significant to them when looking to publish in Emerald.

The paper investigates the quality of the scholarly publishing and refereeing system used in Emerald’s LIS journals from the perspectives of Arab authors who are publishing in this wide-ranging database. Such topic, to date, has limited previous research, as well as the limited size of the representation of the Arab authors in Emerald’s LIS journals in the past five years, which is due logically to the lack of their research and scientific contributions in this database during this period. Future research could focus on varied contexts or samples, such as other different disciplines and nationalities.

The paper provides valuable insight into the perception about the Emerald’s peer review quality by a very significant client group – academic researchers representing 22 Arab countries.

This study is to be the first one of its kind conducted by one of the Arab authors who has published in Emerald’s LIS journals. Being one of the few studies about the scholarly communication/productivity/collaboration of Arab authors in these journals, this study considers a pioneer one among many studies conducted in scholarly communication, especially with Arab authors.

To assess peer review effectiveness by identifying potential loopholes that could lead to Type II errors, that is, loopholes that would allow reviewed firms to pass their peer review when they should not pass.

A questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 500 CPA firms in the USA. A total of 200 responses were received for a 40 percent response rate.

This study found many firms allowed to self‐select will select their engagements least likely to contain violations, allowing firms to review engagements selected before submitting them to the reviewer is a problem, 1 percent of respondent firms neglected to fulfill relevant professional standards because the firms felt there was an insignificant chance of the engagements being selected, and 9 percent of respondent firms indicated they had duplicated work papers and may not have actually done required procedures.

If improprieties were occurring within respondent firms, those firms could fear some form of backlash from answering the survey truthfully, thus limiting the usefulness of responses received.

Many loopholes discussed in this paper are not supported by results showing large percentages of firms violating peer review standards. However, many violations are so significant (e.g. auditor's intentionally violating auditing standards), that even few violations could harm the profession.

Prior research has not been extensive in this area and generally surveyed auditors or users of financial statements to obtain their opinion of peer review. This study gathered data on specific problems contained within peer reviews.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the mechanism of how peer review helpfulness evaluation in online review communities is established, drawing upon the internalization and identification routes of persuasion effect.

Based on book reviews selected from Douban.com (a prestigious review community in China), this study used econometric models to investigate the effects of both reviews and reviewers’ characteristics on peer review helpfulness evaluation in review communities.

Review internalization is more persuasive than reviewers’ identification in peer evaluations, in terms of both short and long reviews. Reviews with extreme negative ratings tend to obtain higher level of helpfulness evaluation than those with positive or moderate ratings. The influence of reviewers’ characteristics is a significant cue in helping consumers to establish the trust perception in the context of short reviews, while its function diminishes in the context of long reviews, thus suggesting the importance of reviewers’ identification for short reviews in review communities.

The findings will enhance current understanding of peer review review helpfulness evaluation in online review communities and help practitioners administrate community reviews intelligently, help members write better reviews and customers in their product browsing experience.

First, this study enriches review evaluation research in review communities by demonstrating the importance of internalization and identification lens of persuasion effect when explaining review helpfulness; second, this study helps to confirm the existing findings that reviews with extreme negative ratings are more helpful than those with moderate or positive ratings in review communities; third, this study proposes a new perspective pertaining to the relationship between reviewers’ identification and helpfulness evaluation.

The overall goal of science is to build a valid and reliable body of knowledge about the functioning of the world and how applying that knowledge can change it. As personnel and human resources management researchers, we aim to contribute to the respective bodies of knowledge to provide both employers and employees with a workable foundation to help with those problems they are confronted with. However, what research on research has consistently demonstrated is that the scientific endeavor possesses existential issues including a substantial lack of (a) solid theory, (b) replicability, (c) reproducibility, (d) proper and generalizable samples, (e) sufficient quality control (i.e., peer review), (f) robust and trustworthy statistical results, (g) availability of research, and (h) sufficient practical implications. In this chapter, we first sing a song of sorrow regarding the current state of the social sciences in general and personnel and human resources management specifically. Then, we investigate potential grievances that might have led to it (i.e., questionable research practices, misplaced incentives), only to end with a verse of hope by outlining an avenue for betterment (i.e., open science and policy changes at multiple levels).

From the perspective of two-sided review systems, this study aims to investigate how guests’ prior reputation influences their subsequent satisfaction on Airbnb.

This study applied a conceptual framework based on social capital theory to explain the effect of guests’ reputation decided by hosts’ prior evaluations on their subsequent satisfaction. The authors collected 96,204 guest reviews posted for 17,325 properties on Airbnb and used the review polarity to measure guest satisfaction. All historical evaluations generated by hosts for each guest were collected and treated as a proxy of guest reputation. Ordinary least squares regressions were conducted to estimate the effect of guests’ reputation on their subsequent satisfaction.

Results show that guests whose historical evaluations have higher valences or larger variations tend to be more satisfied in their subsequent bookings. However, the number of reviews that guests received from hosts in the past does not influence their subsequent satisfaction.

This study provides new insights into the hospitality literature by identifying the influencing factors of guest satisfaction on peer-to-peer rental platforms from the perspective of two-sided review systems. Results also present practical implications to property owners and website designers to gain a deeper understanding of the determinants of guest satisfaction and the consequences of social interactions between hosts and guests.

This study is a novel attempt that analyzes the effect of guests’ reputation on their satisfaction with subsequent bookings based on two-sided review systems on peer-to-peer rental platforms. Thus, this study provides a starting point for investigating how two-sided review systems affect use behavior on peer-to-peer rental platforms.

Technology is sometimes used to support assessments of academic research in the form of automatically generated bibliometrics for reviewers to consult during their evaluations or by replacing some or all human judgements. With artificial intelligence (AI), there is increasing scope to use technology to assist research assessment processes in new ways. Since transparency and fairness are widely considered important for research assessment and AI introduces new issues, this review investigates their implications.

This article reviews and briefly summarises transparency and fairness concerns in general terms and through the issues that they raise for various types of Technology Assisted Research Assessment (TARA).

Whilst TARA can have varying levels of problems with both transparency and bias, in most contexts it is unclear whether it worsens the transparency and bias problems that are inherent in peer review.

This is the first analysis that focuses on algorithmic bias and transparency issues for technology assisted research assessment.