Exposing peer reviewer rings through a retrospective analysis of the public Web of Science reviewer database: Proposing a Score for Journal Reviewer Reliability in the Web of Science Commentary article Abstract: Background The fairness of the peer review process is crucial for maintaining the integrity of academic publications, as reviewers have the authority to reject papers outright. However, the emergence of potentially fraudulent practices, specifically the formation of peer reviewer rings, has raised concerns regarding the reliability of this process. Authors, whether well-known or less popular, often recommend their previous coauthors or close researcher friends to serve as reviewers. This practice can lead to significant challenges within academia, as it leads to the rejection of many high-quality articles due to the limited quota that journals can accommodate. Goal of Study: This study aims to uncover peer reviewer rings by retrospectively analyzing the public Web of Science reviewer database previously known as Publons. By examining the patterns and connections within the Publons database, we can identify suspicious activities that indicate coordinated fraudulent behavior. Through this retrospective analysis, suspicious journals and articles can be easily detected. Journals with excessive fraudulent reviewer activities can be removed from the Web of Science. Conclusion: In conclusion, the retrospective analysis of the public Web of Science reviewer database can play a crucial role in exposing peer reviewer rings and shedding light on potential academic misconduct.
Kadir Uludag
