The Differential Effects of Online Peer Review and Expert Review on Service Evaluations

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 474-489 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hean Tat Keh ◽  
Jin Sun
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Information Source ◽  
Service Evaluation ◽  
Interaction Effects ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Consumer Confidence ◽  
Differential Effects ◽  
Expert Review ◽  
Service Type ◽  
Credence Services

The present research investigates the differential effects of online peer review and expert review on consumers’ evaluations of experience and credence services. We propose that these effects are mediated by consumers’ confidence in their service evaluation and moderated by information convergence. We conduct three studies to test our hypotheses. Study 1 shows that consumers evaluate experience (vs. credence) services more favorably when exposed to peer review (vs. expert review). Across the three studies, we show that the interaction effects between information source and service type on service evaluation are mediated by consumer confidence. Importantly, we identify the moderating role of information convergence on these effects (Studies 2 and 3). Convergent positive reviews substantiate the interaction effects between information source and service type on service evaluation. Interestingly, when consumers see mixed information from either similar or different sources, negative expert review has greater influence than negative peer review in lowering consumer confidence and their evaluations of both experience and credence services. These findings contribute to the literature on information processing in the services domain and also have significant practical implications on managing consumer expectations of third-party information.

Relative importance of country of service delivery, country of person and country of brand in hybrid service evaluation: a conjoint analysis approach

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 819-831
Author(s):  
Daniel Tumpal Hamonangan Aruan ◽  
Roberta Crouch ◽  
Pascale Quester
Keyword(s):  
Service Delivery ◽  
Conjoint Analysis ◽  
Service Evaluation ◽  
Relative Importance ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Customer Expectations ◽  
Service Type ◽  
Credence Services ◽  
Services Evaluation ◽  
Using Data

Purpose This paper aims to examine the relative importance of country of brand (COB), country of service delivery (COSD) and country of person (COP) in consumer evaluation of hybrid services. Design/methodology/approach Using data (N = 1,071) from Australia, Indonesia and Singapore, a conjoint analysis experimental design explored empirically the importance of country of origin (COO) effects in three service contexts: search, experience and credence. Findings The analysis reveals that the relative importance of COP was the highest for credence services, while COB was the strongest for experience services. Practical implications For firms operating offshore, companies must understand that the COO construct is multi-dimensional for services, as it is for tangible products and not limited only to COB as traditionally thought. At least two other distinct dimensions – COSD and COP – can play significant roles as predictors of service quality expectations. Companies must consider the implications of service type, according to the search-experience-credence continuum to inform staffing decisions and managing customer expectations. Originality/value This research contributes to the literature by extending the understanding of country image effects in the context of hybrid service provisions, particularly in the view of customer expectations of services with multiple country-of-origins. Although there have been several studies examining the effects of COO on services evaluation, no empirical study has examined the effects of multiple COOs simultaneously from the perspective of location where the service is delivered (COSD) and individuals who deliver the service (COP), in addition to the effect of COB origin.

scholarly journals Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles R. Ebersole ◽  
Maya B. Mathur ◽  
Erica Baranski ◽  
Diane-Jo Bart-Plange ◽  
Nicholas R. Buttrick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Total Sample ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Original Study ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Expert Review ◽  
Science Collaboration

Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect ( p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3–9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276–3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Δ r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols ( r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols ( r = .04) and the original RP:P replications ( r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies ( r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00–.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19–.50).

scholarly journals Eyes wide open: reader and author responsibility in understanding the limits of peer review

2015 ◽  
Vol 97 (7) ◽  
pp. 487-489 ◽  
Author(s):  
PJ Benson
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Electronic Publishing ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Public Library ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Review Journal ◽  
Peer Review Journal

‘Medical science can only flourish in a free society and dies under totalitarian repression.’ 1 Peer review post-publication is relatively easy to define: when the world decides the importance of publication. Peer review pre-publication is what the scientific community frequently means when using the term ‘peer review’. But what it is it? Few will agree on an exact definition; generally speaking, it refers to an independent, third party scrutiny of a manuscript by scientific experts (called peers) who advise on its suitability for publication. Peer review is expensive; although reviewers are unpaid, the cost in time is enormous and it is slow. There is often little agreement among reviewers about whether an article should be published and peer review can be a lottery. Often referred to as a quality assurance process, there are many examples of when peer review failed. Many will be aware of Woo-Suk Hwang’s shocking stem cell research misconduct at Seoul National University. 2 Science famously published two breakthrough articles that were found subsequently to be completely fabricated and this happened in spite of peer review. Science is not unique in making this error. However, love it or hate it, peer review, for the present time at least, is here to stay. In this article, Philippa Benson, Managing Editor of Science Advances (the first open access journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), discusses the merits of peer review. Dr Benson has extensive experience in the publishing world and was Executive Director of PJB Consulting, a not-for-profit organisation supporting clients on issues related to converting to full electronic publishing workflows as well as challenges working with international authors and publishers. Her clients included the Public Library of Science journals, the American Society for Nutrition and the de Beaumont Foundation. She recently co-authored a book, What Editors Want: An Author’s Guide to Scientific Journal Publishing (University of Chicago Press), which helps readers understand and navigate the publishing process in high impact science and technical journals. Her master’s and doctorate degrees are from Carnegie Mellon University. JYOTI SHAH Commissioning Editor References 1. Eaton KK . Editorial: when is a peer review journal not a peer review journal? J Nutr Environ Med 1997 ; 7 : 139 – 144 . 2. van der Heyden MA , van de Ven T , Opthof T . Fraud and misconduct in science: the stem cell seduction . Neth Heart J 2009 ; 17 : 25 – 29 .

Credit Risk Evaluation Based on Text Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuxia Wang ◽  
Yuwei Qi ◽  
Bin Fu ◽  
Hongzhi Liu
Keyword(s):  
Credit Risk ◽  
Risk Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Information Source ◽  
Good Choice ◽  
Financial Information ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Textual Information ◽  
Subjective Factor ◽  
Similar Accuracy

The main difficulty of credit risk evaluation is to evaluate borrowers' willingness of repayment, which is a subjective factor depending on the thoughts and ideas of borrowers. Text description is a kind of human behavior which reflects the mental process of writers. The authors identify the characteristics of borrowers from their text descriptions and further use them to evaluate the credit risk of loans. Experimental results show that: (1) textual information is a good choice when traditional financial information is missing. The authors can achieve similar accuracy using only textual information as traditional methods which use financial information and credit information from the third party. (2) Textual information is a good complementary information source to traditional financial information sources. Using textual information can improve the performance of credit risk evaluation system when combined with traditional financial information.

Government subsidies in the power battery recycling industry

2020 ◽  
Vol 120 (6) ◽  
pp. 1059-1083 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peiqi Ding ◽  
Zhiying Zhao ◽  
Xiang Li
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Raw Material ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Recycling Industry ◽  
Power Battery ◽  
New Energy ◽  
New Energy Vehicle ◽  
Collection Strategies

PurposeThe power battery is the core of a new energy vehicle and plays a vital role in the rise of the new energy vehicle industry. As the number of waste batteries increases, firms involved in the industry need to properly dispose them, but what party is responsible remains unclear. To reduce environmental impacts, governments introduce two subsidy policies, i.e. collection subsidies, which are provided to the collecting firms, and dismantling subsidies, which are provided to the dismantling firms.Design/methodology/approachBased on the different characteristics of the subsidies, we develop a stylized model to examine the collection strategies and the preferences over the subsidies.FindingsWe derive several insights from analysis. First, the collection strategies depend on the fixed collection cost. Second, the key factor determining the firm's subsidy preference is the efficiency of dismantling. Finally, if the primary target is the collection rate, governments prefer to provide collection subsidies. If consider the environmental impact, the choice of subsidies has to do with the efficiency of dismantling. Moreover, from a social welfare perspective, the raw material cost and the efficiency of dismantling are core indicators of decision.Originality/valueThis work develops the first analytical model to study two power battery subsidies and investigate the optimal collecting strategies and subsidy preferences. The insights are compelling not only for the manufacturer and the third party but also for policymakers.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/IMDS-08-2019-0450

scholarly journals Rapid Evidence Review 1 on the Critical Appraisal of Third-Party Evidence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandy Thomas ◽  
Peter Gregory ◽  
Sarah O’Brien ◽  
Catriona McCallion ◽  
Ben Goodall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Communication ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Food Standards ◽  
Scientific Principles ◽  
Evidence Review ◽  
Proper Context

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) always seeks to ensure that itsrecommendations are made on the best-available evidence. Following a request from the FSA Chair, the Science Council have sought to provide a framework that can guide those seeking to submit uncommissioned evidence to the FSA on its scientific principles and standards.The Science Councils proposed framework is based on the principles of quality, trustand robustness. By being transparent about the FSA’s minimal expectations, we aim to help those who wish to submit evidence, typically in an effort to fill a perceived evidence gap orchange a relevant policy or legislation. The framework also seeks to provides assurance to others on the processes in place within the FSA to assess evidence it receives.When the FSA receives evidence, it will: be transparent about how the evidence is assessed and used to develop its evidence base, policy recommendations and risk communication; assess evidence in its proper context using the principles of quality, trust and robustness; seek to minimise bias in its assessments of evidence by using professional protocols, its SACs, peer review and/or multi-disciplinary teams be open and transparent about the conclusions it has reached about any evidence submitted to it.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document