Identifying Patterns and Motivations of ‘Mega’ Peer-Reviewers

Abstract Background. The demand for peer reviewers is disproportionate to the supply and availability of reviewers. Identifying the factors associated with peer review behaviour can allow for the development of solutions to manage the growing demand for peer reviewers. The objective of this research was to identify factors associated with completing a large number of peer reviews in a given year. Methods. A case-control study design was used to examine factors associated with individuals completing at least 100 peer reviews (‘mega peer reviewers’) from January 2018 to December 2018 as compared to a control group of peer reviewers completing between 1 and 18 peer reviews over the same time period. Data was provided by Publons, which offers a repository of peer reviewer activities in addition to tracking peer reviewer publications and research metrics. A series of independent sample t-tests and chi-square tests were conducted comparing characteristics (e.g., number of publications, number of citations, word count of peer review) of mega peer reviewers to the control group of reviewers. Results. A total of 1596 peer reviewers had data provided by Publons. A total of 396 mega peer reviewers and a random sample of 1200 control group reviewers were included. Both groups were comprised of a greater number of males than females (mega peer reviews = 92.4% male, control reviewers = 70.0% male). Mega peer reviewers demonstrated a significantly greater average number of total publications, citations, receipt of Publons awards, and a higher average h index as compared to the control group of reviewers (all p < .001). Alternatively, the control group had a significantly greater average number of words in their peer reviews (mean = 332.48, standard deviation [SD] = 346.30) as compared to mega peer-reviewers (mean = 272.50, SD = 219.99). Conclusions. There is a sub-set of highly active peer reviewers that complete a large proportion of peer review activities. These individuals demonstrate significantly different characteristics than reviewers completing a more typical number of peer reviews over a one year period. Additional research that considers motivations associated with peer review behaviour should be conducted to help inform peer reviewing activity. Registration. https://osf.io/vxdhf/?view_only=313fd05399664b94bc7a9042aa225be3