Determinants of Peer Review Acceptance: Motivational Insights From German Academia

ABSTRACT This article examines how motivation affects peer review acceptance of journal manuscripts among German professors of biology, business administration, mechanical engineering, and sociology. Data collected via an online survey (March–May 2022) tested hypotheses based on self‐determination theory. The results show significant discipline‐specific differences. In the soft disciplines, intrinsic motivation, own manuscript submissions (reciprocity), and external motivation positively influenced peer review acceptance, while the motive to discover something new had a negative effect. In the hard disciplines, only sense of obligation to the scientific community was significant. Staff support positively influenced peer review acceptance in soft disciplines. The control variables revealed that the total number of peer review requests was positively related to acceptance. However, age, gender, departmental budget linked to publications, and academic discipline were not significant factors. These findings deepen our understanding of motivational factors in peer review and highlight important disciplinary differences.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Higher Education Quarterly
Published
2024-10-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12575
Citations
3
Primary Topic
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.38

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Determinants of Peer Review Acceptance: Motivational Insights From German Academia

Sabine Lauer, Uwe Wilkesmann
3 citations
Higher Education Quarterly
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
1.38
article

Determinants of Peer Review Acceptance: Motivational Insights From German Academia

Sabine Lauer, Uwe Wilkesmann
article en
3 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article examines how motivation affects peer review acceptance of journal manuscripts among German professors of biology, business administration, mechanical engineering, and sociology. Data collected via an online survey (March–May 2022) tested hypotheses based on self‐determination theory. The results show significant discipline‐specific differences. In the soft disciplines, intrinsic motivation, own manuscript submissions (reciprocity), and external motivation positively influenced peer review acceptance, while the motive to discover something new had a negative effect. In the hard disciplines, only sense of obligation to the scientific community was significant. Staff support positively influenced peer review acceptance in soft disciplines. The control variables revealed that the total number of peer review requests was positively related to acceptance. However, age, gender, departmental budget linked to publications, and academic discipline were not significant factors. These findings deepen our understanding of motivational factors in peer review and highlight important disciplinary differences.

Higher Education QuarterlyVol. 79(1)
TU Dortmund University (DE)
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 16%
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
1.38
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.