Which Review Aspect Has a Greater Impact on the Duration of Open Peer Review in Multiple Rounds? -- Evidence from Nature Communications

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.21904v1
• Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2026 06:41:26 GMT
• Title: Which Review Aspect Has a Greater Impact on the Duration of Open Peer Review in Multiple Rounds? -- Evidence from Nature Communications
• Abstract summary: This study examines the relationship between sentiment toward specific review aspects and peer review duration.<n>It also investigates how this relationship varies across disciplines and review rounds.
• Score: 4.536998653366957
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Purpose: Peer review is essential to scientific publishing, but increasing submission volumes have placed growing pressure on reviewers and editors. This study examines the relationship between sentiment toward specific review aspects and peer review duration. It also investigates how this relationship varies across disciplines and review rounds, with the aim of supporting targeted manuscript revision and improving review efficiency. Design/methodology/approach: We adopt a two-stage approach. First, fine-grained aspects are extracted from peer review reports, and a sentiment classification model is used to determine the sentiment associated with each aspect. Second, correlations between aspect-level sentiment and peer review duration are analyzed. Sentiment scores are also calculated for different review rounds to determine whether these relationships change over successive rounds. Findings: Review sentiment has a weak but statistically significant negative correlation with peer review duration, indicating that more positive reviews tend to be associated with shorter review periods. Aspects concerning Evaluation and Results and Impact and Research Value show relatively stronger correlations with review duration. The relationships between aspect-level sentiment and review duration also differ significantly across review rounds. Originality/value: This study connects the textual content of peer review reports with the temporal characteristics of the review process. By identifying review aspects that are more closely associated with review duration, it provides evidence that may help authors prioritize revisions and assist reviewers and editors in improving review efficiency. The findings contribute to reducing the burden of peer review and accelerating scholarly communication and knowledge dissemination.

Related papers

• ActReview: Rebuttal-Guided Training Data and Rubric Rewards for Actionable Peer Review Generation [54.82704239643649]
  We introduce ActReview, a rebuttal-guided post-training framework that connects paper-specific diagnoses to concrete, grounded revision plans.<n>Our central insight is that author rebuttals reveal plausible actions for addressing reviewer concerns and can therefore provide latent supervision for revision-oriented feedback.<n>We also introduce ActReview-Bench, a human-curated benchmark of 1,000 instances for evaluating diagnostic quality and revision usefulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-08T17:30:16Z)
• Aspect-Based Sentiment Evolution and its Correlation with Review Rounds in Multi-Round Peer Reviews: A Deep Learning Approach [2.654068381694478]
  This study investigates the distribution and evolution of aspect-level sentiments in peer review comments.<n>We train a series of deep learning-based aspect sentiment classification models.<n>As the number of review rounds increases, the proportion of positive sentiments rises, while negative sentiments decline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T06:14:00Z)
• Quantifying the Statistical Effect of Rubric Modifications on Human-Autorater Agreement [50.34437999083224]
  Autoraters are increasingly used for evaluation and automated moderation content.<n>There is limited statistical analysis of how modifications in a rubric presented to both humans and autoraters affect their score agreement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T13:55:11Z)
• Is Peer Review Really in Decline? Analyzing Review Quality across Venues and Time [55.756345497678204]
  We introduce a new framework for evidence-based comparative study of review quality.<n>We apply it to major AI and machine learning conferences: ICLR, NeurIPS and *ACL.<n>We study the relationships between measurements of review quality, and its evolution over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T16:48:29Z)
• Insights from the ICLR Peer Review and Rebuttal Process [11.96840383745149]
  We present a large-scale analysis of the ICLR 2024 and 2025 peer review processes.<n>We examine review scores, author-reviewer engagement, temporal patterns in review submissions, and co-reviewer influence effects.<n>Our findings show that initial scores and the ratings of co-reviewers are the strongest predictors of score changes during the rebuttal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-19T14:21:52Z)
• What Drives Paper Acceptance? A Process-Centric Analysis of Modern Peer Review [2.9282248958475345]
  We present a large-scale empirical study of ICLR 2017-2025, encompassing over 28,000 submissions.<n>Our results show that factors beyond scientific novelty significantly shape acceptance outcomes.<n>We propose data-driven guidelines for authors, reviewers, and meta-reviewers to enhance transparency and fairness in peer review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T03:00:10Z)
• In-depth Research Impact Summarization through Fine-Grained Temporal Citation Analysis [52.42612945266194]
  We propose a new task: generating nuanced, expressive, and time-aware impact summaries.<n>We show that these summaries capture both praise (confirmation citations) and critique (correction citations) through the evolution of fine-grained citation intents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T19:11:06Z)
• Identifying Aspects in Peer Reviews [59.02879434536289]
  We develop a data-driven schema for deriving aspects from a corpus of peer reviews.<n>We introduce a dataset of peer reviews augmented with aspects and show how it can be used for community-level review analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T14:14:42Z)
• Paper Quality Assessment based on Individual Wisdom Metrics from Open Peer Review [4.35783648216893]
  Traditional closed peer review systems are slow, costly, non-transparent, and possibly subject to biases.<n>We propose and examine the efficacy and accuracy of an alternative form of scientific peer review: through an open, bottom-up process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-22T17:00:27Z)
• SEAGraph: Unveiling the Whole Story of Paper Review Comments [23.254167273244416]
  In the traditional peer review process, authors often receive vague or insufficiently detailed feedback.<n>This raises the critical question of how to enhance authors' comprehension of review comments.<n>We present SEAGraph, a novel framework developed to clarify review comments by uncovering the underlying intentions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-16T16:24:36Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [51.26815896167173]
  We present a comprehensive tertiary analysis of PAMI reviews along three complementary dimensions.<n>Our analyses reveal distinctive organizational patterns as well as persistent gaps in current review practices.<n>Finally, our evaluation of state-of-the-art AI-generated reviews indicates encouraging advances in coherence and organization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• Aspect-based Sentiment Analysis of Scientific Reviews [12.472629584751509]
  We show that the distribution of aspect-based sentiments obtained from a review is significantly different for accepted and rejected papers. As a second objective, we quantify the extent of disagreement among the reviewers refereeing a paper. We also investigate the extent of disagreement between the reviewers and the chair and find that the inter-reviewer disagreement may have a link to the disagreement with the chair.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-05T07:06:01Z)
• A Unified Dual-view Model for Review Summarization and Sentiment Classification with Inconsistency Loss [51.448615489097236]
  Acquiring accurate summarization and sentiment from user reviews is an essential component of modern e-commerce platforms. We propose a novel dual-view model that jointly improves the performance of these two tasks. Experiment results on four real-world datasets from different domains demonstrate the effectiveness of our model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-02T13:34:11Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.