Table 4 Mixed-effects linear model on the polarity of review reports

From: The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals

Fixed effects Estimate Std. error DF t-value p-value
(Intercept) 0.168 0.009 56.979 17.691 <0.001
Open review −0.008 0.005 14,828.582 −1.495 0.135
Recommendation: Major revisions 0.029 0.002 15,338.173 17.032 <0.001
Recommendation: Minor revisions 0.043 0.002 15,114.247 24.469 <0.001
Recommendation: Accept 0.079 0.003 15,328.735 24.283 <0.001
log (report length) −0.012 0.001 13,203.481 −12.499 <0.001
Status: Other 0.004 0.004 152,48.119 1.114 0.265
Status: Dr −0.001 0.002 15,309.698 −0.620 0.535
Gender: Male −0.009 0.004 15,369.354 −2.530 0.011
Gender: Uncertain −0.009 0.004 15,367.941 −2.310 0.021
Year −0.000 0.001 7472.964 −0.372 0.710
Open review × Status: Other 0.001 0.006 15,212.757 0.196 0.845
Open review × Status: Dr −0.001 0.003 15,261.003 −0.419 0.675
Open review × Gender: Male 0.012 0.005 15,369.386 2.567 0.010
Open review × Gender: Uncertain 0.007 0.005 15,369.572 1.371 0.171
Std. Dev. of random effects:
Submission (intercept) 0.014     
Journal (intercept) 0.011     
Residual 0.0817     
No. of observations 15,387.0     
Log likelihood 16,403.4     
AIC −32,806.8     
  1. The reference class for the referees’ status is “Professor”, while for gender is “Female”, the one for recommendation is “Reject”. Only reports including at least 250 characters were considered. Degrees of freedom were computed using Satterthwaite’s approximation