English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Peer-review system has long been relied upon for bringing quality research tothe notice of the scientific community and also preventing flawed research fromentering into the literature. The need for the peer-review system has oftenbeen debated as in numerous cases it has failed in its task and in most ofthese cases editors and the reviewers were thought to be responsible for notbeing able to correctly judge the quality of the work. This raises a question"Can the peer-review system be improved?" Since editors and reviewers are themost important pillars of a reviewing system, we in this work, attempt toaddress a related question - given the editing/reviewing history of the editorsor re- viewers "can we identify the under-performing ones?", with citationsreceived by the edited/reviewed papers being used as proxy for quantifyingperformance. We term such review- ers and editors as anomalous and we believeidentifying and removing them shall improve the performance of the peer- reviewsystem. Using a massive dataset of Journal of High Energy Physics (JHEP)consisting of 29k papers submitted between 1997 and 2015 with 95 editors and4035 reviewers and their review history, we identify several factors whichpoint to anomalous behavior of referees and editors. In fact the anomalouseditors and reviewers account for 26.8% and 14.5% of the total editors andreviewers respectively and for most of these anomalous reviewers theperformance degrades alarmingly over time.

Anomalies in the peer-review system: A case study of the journal of High Energy Physics