Traditional Peer Research Articles

Teacher and Peer Reports on Preschoolers Sociometric Popularity

ABSTRACTResearch Findings: Traditional peer sociometric nominations, even at early ages, are not replaceable by teachers’ classifications of children’s sociometric popularity. The association between reports from the two sources, although not independent, was weak, with teachers perceiving more children as popular and fewer children as rejected. Teacher and peer classifications were similarly associated with social skills and behavior problems. Sociometric popularity obtained from teachers, but not from peers, was associated with children’s age and verbal competence. Practice or policy: This study investigated the association between preschool children’s sociometric popularity obtained from peer sociometric nominations and from teachers’ classifications. A total of 1535 children (731 girls and 804 boys), aged between 34 and 89.6 months (M = 61.96, SD = 8.91), and 89 teachers participated in the study.

Communities of Practice in Peer Review: Outlining a Group Review Process.

Traditional peer review remains the gold standard for assessing the merit of scientific scholarship for publication. Challenges to this model include reliance on volunteer contributions of individuals with self-reported expertise; lack of sufficient mentoring and training of new reviewers; and the isolated, noncollaborative nature of individual reviewer processes.The authors participated in an Association of American Medical Colleges peer-review workshop in November 2015 and were intrigued by the process of group peer review. Subsequent discussions led to shared excitement about exploring this model further. The authors worked with the staff and editors of Academic Medicine to perform a group review of 4 submitted manuscripts, documenting their iterative process and analysis of outcomes, to define an optimal approach to performing group peer review.Individual recommendations for each manuscript changed as a result of the group review process. The group process led to more comprehensive reviews than each individual reviewer would have submitted independently. The time spent on group reviews decreased as the process became more refined. Recommendations aligned with journal editor findings. Shared operating principles were identified, as well as clear benefits of group peer review for reviewers, authors, and journal editors.The authors plan to continue to refine and codify an effective process for group peer review. They also aim to more formally evaluate the model, with inclusion of feedback from journal editors and authors, and to compare feedback from group peer reviews versus individual reviewer feedback. Finally, models for expansion of the group-peer-review process are proposed.

STRATEGI KIAI DALAM MENSUKSESKAN PEMBELAJARAN NAHWU DAN SHOROF DI PONDOK PESANTREN AL-BIDAYAH TEGALBESAR KALIWATES JEMBER

In studying the yellow book (kitab kuning) there is at least grammatical science that must be learned by a student, namely the science of Nahwu and Shorof. But in reality for the majority of students studying both sciences is a scourge. This is because in learning science nahwu and shorof there are many terms that seem difficult to understand. To induce the learning of nahwu and shorof, of course the existence of the kiai in determining his learning strategy is very important so that the presumption of learning nahwu and shorof that seems difficult can be easy. This study aims to determine the strategy of the kiai in inducing learning from nahwu and shorof at Al-Bidayah Islamic Boarding School in Tegalbesar Kaliwates Jember. The method used in this study uses a descriptive qualitative research approach. The data collection techniques using interviews, observation and documentation using purposive sampling in determining research subjects. Data analysis and checking the validity of the data in this study used the theory put forward by Miles and Huberman. In testing the validity of the data obtained, researchers used a triangulation technique. This research has concluded that the kiai in the success of nahwu and shorof learning use two strategies, namely the learning method and the preparation of textbooks. The method that is often used is the Wetonan method, sorogan and memorization (hafalan) as traditional methods and peer tutorial methods as modern methods. The preparation of textbooks done by the kiai is a new breakthrough because this book is arranged systematically so that it is easy to understand, digest and understand by students. Keywords: Strategy of the kiai, the science of Nahwu and Shorof

Feature-enriched author ranking in incomplete networks

Evaluating scientists based on their scientific production is a controversial topic. Nevertheless, bibliometrics and algorithmic approaches can assist traditional peer review in numerous tasks, such as attributing research grants, deciding scientific committees, or choosing faculty promotions. Traditional bibliometrics rank individual entities (e.g., researchers, journals, faculties) without looking at the whole data (i.e., the whole network). Network algorithms, such as PageRank, have been used to measure node importance in a network, and have been applied to author ranking. However, traditional PageRank only uses network topology and ignores relevant features of scientific collaborations. Multiple extensions of PageRank have been proposed, more suited for author ranking. These methods enrich the network with information about the author’s productivity or the venue and year of the publication/citation. Most state-of-the-art (STOA) feature-enriched methods either ignore or do not combine effectively this information. Furthermore, STOA algorithms typically disregard that the full network is not known for most real-world cases.Here we describe OTARIOS, an author ranking method recently developed by us, which combines multiple publication/citation criteria (i.e., features) to evaluate authors. OTARIOS divides the original network into two subnetworks, insiders and outsiders, which is an adequate representation of citation networks with missing information. We evaluate OTARIOS on a set of five real networks, each with publications in distinct areas of Computer Science, and compare it against STOA methods. When matching OTARIOS’ produced ranking with a ground-truth ranking (comprised of best paper award nominations), we observe that OTARIOS is >30% more accurate than traditional PageRank (i.e., topology based method) and >20% more accurate than STOA (i.e., competing feature enriched methods). We obtain the best results when OTARIOS considers (i) the author’s publication volume and publication recency, (ii) how recently the author’s work is being cited by outsiders, and (iii) how recently the author’s work is being cited by insiders and how individual he is. Our results showcase (a) the importance of efficiently combining relevant features and (b) how to adequately perform author ranking in incomplete networks.

Editors Should Declare Conflicts of Interest

Editors have increasing pressure as scholarly publishing tries to shore up trust and reassure academics and the public that traditional peer review is robust, fail-safe, and corrective. Hidden conflicts of interest (COIs) may skew the fairness of the publishing process because they could allow the status of personal or professional relationships to positively influence the outcome of peer review or reduce the processing period of this process. Not all authors have such privileged relationships. In academic journals, editors usually have very specialized skills and are selected as agents of trust, entrusted with the responsibility of serving as quality control gate-keepers during peer review. In many cases, editors form extensive networks, either with other professionals, industry, academic bodies, journals, or publishers. Such networks and relationships may influence their decisions or even their subjectivity towards a set of submitting authors, paper, or institute, ultimately influencing the peer review process. These positions and relationships are not simply aspects of a curriculum, they are potential COIs. Thus, on the editorial board of all academic journals, editors should carry a COI statement that reflects their past history, as well as actual relationships and positions that they have, as these may influence their editorial functions.

Practical considerations when implementing peer learning conferences.

Peer learning represents a shift away from traditional peer review. Peer learning focuses on improvement of diagnostic performance rather than on suboptimal performance. The shift in focus away from random selection and toward identification of cases with valuable teaching points can encourage more active radiologist engagement in the learning process. An effective peer learning program relies on a trusting environment that lessens the fear of embarrassment or punitive action. Here we describe the shortcomings of traditional peer review, and the benefits of peer learning. We also provide tips for a successful peer learning program and examples of implementation.

PEER VIOLENCE AS PREDICTOR OF CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to examine individual, familial and peer variables as predictors of cyberbullying in early adolescence. The research included (N = 226) male students from Valjevo, aged 15.56 (SD = 0.68). The following measuring instruments were used: Socio-demographic Questionnaire, Violence Among School Children Questionnaire, Parent Behavior Questionnaire. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was examined using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The results of correlation analysis have shown minute and statistically significant correlation between the scores of applied variables. Hierarchical regression model has explained 36% of the variance of traditional peer violence and 10% of cyberbullying. All the examined variables have proven to be statistically significant predictors of traditional peer violence, but not cyberbullying. Seeing that the predictor variables of traditional peer violence partly explain cyberbullying, it is necessary to examine other potential determinants such as frequency of use of electronic media, electronic victimization and others, which would contribute to the prediction of the examined criterion. The applied questionnaires are of optimal use in everyday practice in Serbia and can provide relevant information in evaluating traditional peer violence and cyberbullying among preadolescents.

Undergraduate Curricular Training in Musculoskeletal Ultrasound by Student Teachers: The Impact of Peyton's Four-Step Approach.

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of Peyton's 4-step approach on musculoskeletal ultrasound skills in a peer-teaching environment as compared to traditional "see one, do one" training and to evaluate students' acceptance of the training strategy. A total of 491 second year medical students (342 women, 149 men) completed a compulsory curricular course on musculoskeletal ultrasound. We randomly assigned students to receive traditional peer teaching or peer teaching using Peyton's four-step approach in small groups. All groups received theoretical and practical hands-on training of selected views of the knee and shoulder. We assessed differences in practical skills (objective structured practical examination, OSPE) and evaluation results with respect to teaching strategy. There were no relevant differences between the two teaching interventions regarding the OSPE results. Students scored significantly higher in the knee view (knee 6.5 ± 1.7 points, shoulder 6.0 ± 1.9 points; p < 0.001), needed less time to display the required image (knee 36 ± 21 s, shoulder 43 ± 20 s; p < 0.001) and more students obtained the cut-off mark of 60% to pass the exam (knee 73%, shoulder 61%; p < 0.001). Acceptance of the peer-teaching concept was high, and the overall rating of the instructors was good. The majority of students enjoyed the course and rated it highly. Traditional teaching and Peyton's 4-step approach seem to be equally effective for teaching basic musculoskeletal ultrasound skills to undergraduate medical students. Qualitative analysis revealed high acceptance of both peer teaching strategies. Differences in course content complexity and degree of difficulty need to be addressed in future courses.

The Plant Journal has introduced optional double‐blind peer review

One of our goals at the Plant Journal is to serve our authors to the highest possible standard. As a society journal, we are looking hard at how the journal can support the plant sciences community and one of the ways we can do this is to make the process of publishing a paper in TPJ as simple, efficient and fair as possible. We have already made the submission process significantly more flexible, removing formatting requirements for initial submission and have substantially relaxed article-length guidelines. The TPJ Editorial Board and Editorial Office at Wiley work incredibly hard to ensure that fair reviews of manuscripts are obtained in a timely fashion and that clear and well-justified decisions are made. But, we would like to do more. At a meeting of the TPJ Editorial Board in May 2018, we discussed how we could update our peer review process to address biases, unconscious or otherwise. These biases could relate to gender, geographical location of authors, career-stage of authors and many other factors. Biases can be both negative and positive. We discussed the two main alternatives to the traditional single-blind peer review system used by TPJ (where reviewers remain anonymous to authors whilst authors are known to reviewers). These are: double-blind review, where reviewers do not know the identity of authors and vice versa; and open review, where all identities are known and reviews are published alongside the paper. There are pros and cons to each of these systems and it is fair to say that the board was split on this issue. One of the difficulties we faced in making a decision was the lack of evidence as to whether these systems are actually effective in addressing biases. Although a 2008 study claimed that introduction of double-blind review in the journal Behavioural Ecology increased the number of papers by female authors (Budden et al., 2008), the statistical significance of this effect was subsequently disputed (Webb et al., 2008). In the end we decided against open review, our concern being that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. The board was particularly concerned that open review could affect the critical quality of reviews. Indeed, when Nature experimented with open review in 2006, they found that open reviews were not technically substantive. Moreover, take-up by both authors and reviewers was low. Double-blind review is also not without problems – the main one being the difficulty of truly anonymising papers. Nevertheless, when scientists are polled, double-blind review is consistently and overwhelmingly regarded as the most effective peer review system (Mulligan et al., 2013). Journals in the plant sciences have been relatively conservative with respect to their peer-review systems, but some plant journals are now offering double-blind review (e.g. Nature Plants and AoB Plants). We decided that TPJ should also offer double-blind peer review and this has been in place since mid-September. We recognise that some papers will be difficult to anonymise and that not all authors will wish to undertake the additional burden of anonymising manuscripts. Therefore, we are offering double-blind peer review as an option. Authors wishing to take up this option should tick the relevant box during the submission process and ensure that their manuscript file is worded in such a way that their identity is not revealed. Advice as to how to achieve this and full-instructions for double-blind submission are given in the author guidelines online. We will monitor and compare the single-blind and double-blind tracks to assess the take-up of double-blind review and its effect on the gender and geographic origin of submissions and accepted papers. We will report this information back to the community. We will also investigate how we might quantify and compare review quality in the two tracks. We will trial opt-in double blind review for a full year before deciding whether to make it a permanent feature of TPJ peer-review. We will also continue to discuss other avenues and approaches for addressing bias in the peer review process and will commit to implementing anything that is considered both practical and effective. We would welcome comments and discussion from readers by email (lee.sweetlove@plants.ox.ac.uk; fb@msu.edu); Twitter (@leesweetlove; @ThePlantJournal)

Open Peer Review for Evaluating Academic Legal Publications: The “Antidote” to an “Ill” Blind Peer Review?

Numerous peer-reviewed law journals, in particular Latin-American ones, stand out for their general use of blind methods to assess the substantive quality of academic articles. Nevertheless, this traditional peer review model is considered ill (i.e. poor-quality) across disciplines due to different technical and social issues. The cause seems to be the anonymity between the actors involved. Then, open peer review models have emerged as an antidote to combat the main symptoms that the blind model presents, namely, lack of transparency during the process and absence of reviewers’ accountability. However, thus far law journals have not adopted an open system yet. Moreover, neither theoretical nor empirical research has been conducted about its potential use. This article presents an in-depth analysis of the pros and cons of both the traditional and the open identities review models in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines – in which the latter has been broadly applied. This paper compares the experience of STEM disciplines in relation to both of the methods and use the insights from this comparison to examine the legal discipline. The author specifically argues that unmasking the identities of authors and evaluators may be a suitable way to counteract only some of the flaws that the blind model has entailed in the evaluation of academic legal publications, therefore a mixed method could be a fairer alternative for current blind-peer-reviewed law journals. The author concludes by providing recommendations for further research.

Challenges to open peer review

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to assess what the challenges to open peer review (OPR) are, relative to traditional peer review (TPR).Design/methodology/approachBy examining select issues within peer review, more broadly, and challenges within TPR, the effectiveness of OPR is questioned.FindingsAlthough OPR brings an aspect of transparency, by partially eliminating biases, fear of reprisals and of professional blow-back, either by authors who may be criticized or by competitors, limits the expansion of this peer review model, or its adoption as an industry-wide standard.Originality/valueOpen Science 2.0 boasts of greater openness and transparency and OPR is touted as one tool to achieve this. However, that potential is limited. This limitation needs to be recognized.

Reputation or peer review? The role of outliers

We present an agent-based model of paper publication and consumption that allows to study the effect of two different evaluation mechanisms, peer review and reputation, on the quality of the manuscripts accessed by a scientific community. The model was empirically calibrated on two data sets, mono- and multi-disciplinary. Our results point out that disciplinary settings differ in the rapidity with which they deal with extreme events—papers that have an extremely high quality, that we call outliers. In the mono-disciplinary case, reputation is better than traditional peer review to optimize the quality of papers read by researchers. In the multi-disciplinary case, if the quality landscape is relatively flat, a reputation system also performs better. In the presence of outliers, peer review is more effective. Our simulation suggests that a reputation system could perform better than peer review as a scientific information filter for quality except when research is multi-disciplinary and in a field where outliers exist.

Cyber and traditional peer victimization: Examining unique associations with children’s internalizing difficulties

Peer victimization leads to a number of negative developmental outcomes. Although many studies have explored cyber victimization impacts in adolescent samples, few have analyzed unique negative consequences in relation to younger children. To that end, the purpose of the present study is to examine the associations between cyber victimization and internalizing problems, alone and in combination with traditional victimization. Using a sample of 3rd through 5th grade students, structural equation modeling results reveal that traditional victimization was significantly related to depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and lower self-esteem; however, cyber victimization was not related to any of these outcomes of interest. Several gender and grade level differences were also found. Although a notable portion of the sample reported exposure to cyber victimization, traditional forms of victimization were more common. Implications for school-based prevention and intervention efforts are discussed.

DSV-76 - Using Visual Management Tools to Drive Practice Changes

Background: A 300 bed, free standing pediatric hospital utilizes CLABSI bundle compliance rates from both self-reported and traditional peer review audits to improve clinical patient care. When the CLABSI bundle compliance rates are being presented by means of a stoplight chart, team members find it difficult to visualize central line maintenance areas for improvement and drive practice changes. Improving practices can be driven by utilizing simple visual management tools.

The difference is more than floating: factors affecting breast cancer survivors’ decisions to join and maintain participation in dragon boat teams and support groups

Purpose: Peer support can be helpful in rehabilitation from breast cancer, but participation in peer support groups is low. Groups that provide support opportunities in physical activity contexts are an attractive alternative for some survivors. This study examined survivors’ reasons for joining and maintaining participation on a dragon boat team, along with perceptions of barriers and attractions to traditional peer support groups.Materials and methods: Seventeen breast cancer survivors were interviewed on five occasions over their first two seasons of a newly formed dragon boating team to explore their perceptions of peer support groups and dragon boating. Data were inductively analyzed using thematic analysis.Results: Categories surrounding physical, psychological, social and community features were identified with several themes emerging within each. Advantages of dragon boating included opportunities to get a combination of physical, psychosocial and community benefits; health improvement and behavior change; and obtaining social support without the focus being on cancer. Peer support groups were identified as having advantages for forming relationships and avoiding barriers associated with physical activity.Conclusions: While neither type of program meets all needs, practical considerations are identified for incorporating advantages of both programs to improve participation.Implications for rehabilitationFurther understanding of perceptions, and attractions and challenges to taking part in group programs will inform development of accessible programs that target multiple rehabilitation needs.Physical activity can provide a positive, alternative focus that takes the emphasis off of cancer, which is more accessible to some survivors.Physical activity also provides opportunities to build relationships around a common, positive goal, which can be a foundation for providing support for coping with cancer.

Traditional and cyber-victimization among adolescents with and without chronic pain.

Prior research has revealed a link between peer victimization and somatic complaints in healthy youth; however, the peer victimization experiences of youth with clinically significant chronic pain have not been examined. This study aims to determine rates of peer victimization among youth seeking treatment for chronic pain and to compare these rates to a community control group. Relationships between peer victimization, depressive symptoms, and functional disability are also examined. One hundred forty-three adolescents (70 with chronic pain) completed measures assessing their experience of traditional (physical, relational, reputational) and cyber-based peer victimization, as well as measures assessing their depressive symptoms and pain-related functional disability. Peer victimization experiences were common among youth with and without chronic pain. Within the chronic pain group, there were differences in rates of peer victimization as a function of the adolescent's school setting. Adolescents with chronic pain attending traditional schools reported more frequent peer victimization experiences than adolescents with pain not enrolled in school or attending online/home school. Within the chronic pain sample, peer victimization was moderately associated with depressive symptoms and functional disability. Tests of a simple mediation model revealed a significant indirect effect of peer victimization on functional disability, through depression. These results are the first to systematically document the peer victimization experiences of adolescents with chronic pain. Peer victimization is commonly experienced, particularly for those enrolled in traditional school settings. Associations with depressive symptoms and functional disability suggest that peer victimization may be a useful target for intervention. (PsycINFO Database Record

“Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to better understand the theory and practice of peer review in open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs typically operate a “soundness-only” review policy aiming to evaluate only the rigour of an article, not the novelty or significance of the research or its relevance to a particular community, with these elements being left for “the community to decide” post-publication.Design/methodology/approachThe paper reports the results of interviews with 31 senior publishers and editors representing 16 different organisations, including 10 that publish an OAMJ. Thematic analysis was carried out on the data and an analytical model developed to explicate their significance.FindingsFindings suggest that in reality criteria beyond technical or scientific soundness can and do influence editorial decisions. Deviations from the original OAMJ model are both publisher supported (in the form of requirements for an article to be “worthy” of publication) and practice driven (in the form of some reviewers and editors applying traditional peer review criteria to OAMJ submissions). Also publishers believe post-publication evaluation of novelty, significance and relevance remains problematic.Originality/valueThe study is based on unprecedented access to senior publishers and editors, allowing insight into their strategic and operational priorities. The paper is the first to report in-depth qualitative data relating specifically to soundness-only peer review for OAMJs, shedding new light on the OAMJ phenomenon and helping inform discussion on its future role in scholarly communication. The paper proposes a new model for understanding the OAMJ approach to quality assurance, and how it is different from traditional peer review.

Publication quality, peer review and predatory journals

ABSTRACTAcademic tenure and promotion decisions typically involve judgements about quality and generally require authors to publish in peer‐reviewed venues. Even though peer review is known to be imperfect, it remains a widely accepted quality assurance mechanism. Nonetheless in recent times attacks on traditional peer review have come from multiple sources, including concerns about effectiveness, calls for open peer review, and predatory publishers. The panel will discuss these and related issues.

Is peer review evolving in the open access environment? A survey of Croatian open access journals

Most of the journals in Croatia adopted the open access (OA) model and their content is freely accessible and available for reuse without restrictions except that attribution be given to the author(s) and journal. There are 444 Croatian scholarly, professional, popular and trade OA journals available in the national repository of OA journals Hrcak, and 217 of them use peer review process as the primary quality assurance system. The goal of our study was to investigate the peer review process used by the Croatian OA journals and the editors’ attitude towards open peer review.An online survey was sent to the Hrcak journal editors with 39 questions grouped in: journal general information, a number of submitted/rejected/accepted manuscripts and timeliness of publishing, peer review process characteristics, instructions for peer reviewers and open peer review. Responses were obtained from 152 editors (141 complete and 11 partial). All journals employ peer review process except one. The data were collected from February to July 2017.The majority of journals come from the humanities (n=50, 33%) and social sciences (n=37, 24%). Less represented are journals from the field of biomedicine (n=22, 14%), technical sciences (n=16, 11%), natural sciences (n=12, 8%), biotechnical sciences (n=10, 7%) and interdisciplinary journals (n=3, 2%). Average journal submission is 54 manuscripts per year, but there are big differences among journals: maximum submission is 550 manuscripts, and minimum just five. In average journal publishes 23 papers after the reviewers’ and editors’ acceptance. In average it takes 16 days for sending the manuscript to the reviewer, 49 days for all the reviewers to send the journal a detailed report on the manuscript, 14 days to the editors’ decision, and another 60 days for the paper to be published.External peer review process where reviewers are not members of the editorial board or employees of the journal’s parent institution was used by 86 journals (60%). Other journals use external peer review process where reviewers are not members of the editorial board but could be employees of the journal’s parent institution (n=40, 28%), and editorial peer review. Remaining 10% journals combine previous three types of the peer review. Only 20% journals use exclusively reviewers from abroad, 44% are combining international and national reviewers, and 36% journals use only reviewers from Croatia.The majority of journals provide two reviews for each manuscript, and the process is double blind. Detailed instructions for peer reviewers are provided by less than half of the journals (n=57, 40%), but ethical issues like plagiarism, conflict of interest, confidentiality etc., are neglected. Usually, a reviewer is not informed of the final decision upon the manuscript, and reviews are not shared among reviewers.Somehow surprising was the opinion of the majority of the editors that reviewers must get credit for their efforts (n=121, 85%). On the other hand, editors are not familiar with the concept of open peer review, which can be easily used for that purpose. Some editors believe that open peer review is related to the identity disclosure: both authors’ and reviewers’ (n=35, 25%), reviewers’ (n=27, 19%), and authors’ identity (n=14, 10%). For many editors open peer review implies publicly available reviews (n=65, 36%) and authors’ responses (n=46, 33%). Open peer review is an unknown concept for some editors (n=32, 23%).In spite of all criticism traditional peer review is predominant in Croatian OA journals. Our findings show that traditional peer review is still the preferred review mechanism for the majority of journals in the study.

The ClarivateTM Analytics acquisition of Publons – an evolution or commodification of peer review?

Without peer reviewers, the entire scholarly publishing system as we currently know it would collapse. However, as it currently stands, publishing is an extremely exploitative system, relative to other business models, in which trained and specialized labor is exploited, in the form of editors and peer reviewers, primarily by for-profit publishers, in return for a pat on the back, and a public nod of thanks. This is the “standardized” and “accepted” form for deriving mainstream peer reviewed literature. However, except for open peer review, where reports are open and identities are known, traditional peer review is closed, and the content of peer reports is known only to the authors and editors involved. Publons launched in 2012 as a platform that would offer recognition to peer reviewers for their work. In 2016, Publons rewarded the most productive reviewers with a “Sentinels of Science” award, accompanied by a dismal monetary reward (38 US cents/review) for their efforts. A site aimed at registering pre- and post-publication peer efforts, Publons was perceived as a positive step towards a more transparent peer review system. However, the continued presence of fake peer reviews and a spike in retractions, even among publishers that were Publons sponsors, suggests that perhaps peers may be exploiting Publons to get recognition for superficial or poor peer review. Since all reviews are not public, their content and quality cannot be verified. On 1 June 2017, ClarivateTM Analytics, which owns the journal impact factor—most likely the most gamed non-academic factor in academic publishing—which is a measure of the number of citations of papers in journals, many of which are published by the for-profit publishers—including Publons sponsors—that “employ” free peer reviewers to quality check the literature they then sell for profit, purchased Publons. Touting the purchase as a way to increase transparency, and stamp out fake peer review, some who had supported Publons felt betrayed, even cancelling their Publons accounts immediately when learning of this purchase. Their concerns included the possible “gaming” of peer review as had taken place with the journal impact factor. This commentary examines possible positive and negative aspects of this business transaction, and what it might mean to academics and publishers.