Implicit reporting standards in bibliometric research: what can reviewers' comments tell us about reporting completeness?
Dimity Stephen, Alexander Schniedermann, Andrey Lovakov, Marion Schmidt, Matteo Ottaviani, Nikita Sorgatz, Roberto Cruz Romero, Torger M\"oller, Valeria Aman, and Stephan Stahlschmidt

TL;DR
This study analyzes peer review comments to identify implicit reporting standards in bibliometric research, offering recommendations to improve reporting completeness and consistency.
Contribution
It systematically examines reviewer comments to derive implicit community standards and compares them with existing reporting guidelines, highlighting gaps and areas for improvement.
Findings
Reviewers focus on data, methods, and results reporting.
Derived 49 recommendations for reporting details.
Recommendations cover 60-80% of existing guidelines.
Abstract
The recent surge in bibliometric studies published has been accompanied by increasing diversity in the completeness of reporting these studies' details, affecting reliability, reproducibility, and robustness. Our study systematises the reporting of bibliometric research using open peer reviews. We examined 182 peer reviews of 85 bibliometric studies published in library and information science (LIS) journals and conference proceedings, and non-LIS journals. We extracted 968 reviewer comments and inductively classified them into 11 broad thematic categories and 68 sub-categories, determining that reviewers largely focus on the completeness and clarity of reporting data, methods, and results. We subsequently derived 49 recommendations for the details authors should report and compared them with the GLOBAL, PRIBA, and BIBLIO reporting guidelines to identify (dis)similarities in content.…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
