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 Tools annual

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 monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Peer review aims to detect flaws and deficiencies in the design andinterpretation of studies, and ensure the clarity and quality of theirpresentation. However, it has been questioned whether peer review fulfils thisfunction. Studies have highlighted a stronger focus of reviewers on critiquingmethodological aspects of studies and the quality of writing in biomedicalsciences, with less focus on theoretical grounding. In contrast, reviewers inthe social sciences appear more concerned with theoretical underpinnings. Thesestudies also found the effect of peer review on manuscripts' content to bevariable, but generally modest and positive. I qualitatively analysed 1,430peer reviewers' comments for a sample of 40 social science preprint-publicationpairs to identify the key foci of reviewers' comments. I then quantified theeffect of peer review on manuscripts by examining differences between thepreprint and published versions using the normalised Levenshtein distance,cosine similarity, and word count ratios for titles, abstracts, documentsections and full-texts. I also examined changes in references used betweenversions and linked changes to reviewers' comments. Reviewers' comments werenearly equally split between issues of methodology (30.7%), theory (30.0%), andwriting quality (29.2%). Titles, abstracts, and the semantic content ofdocuments remained similar, although publications were typically longer thanpreprints. Two-thirds of citations were unchanged, 20.9% were added duringreview and 13.1% were removed. These findings indicate reviewers equallyattended to the theoretical and methodological details and communication styleof manuscripts, although the effect on quantitative measures of the manuscriptswas limited.

Peer reviewers equally critique theory, method, and writing, with limited effect on manuscripts' content