  Scientometers and sociologists of science have spilled much ink on the topic
of peer review over the past twenty years, given its primordial role in a
context marked by the exponential growth of scientific production and the
proliferation of predatory journals. Although the topic is addressed under
different prisms, few studies have empirically analyzed to what extent it can
affect the quality of publications. Here we study the link between the length
of reviewers' reports and the citations received by publications. To do this,
we used data from the Publons database (58,093 peer review reports). We have
adjusted this sample to match the WoS database structure. Our regression
results show that peer review positively affects the quality of publications.
In other words, the more indepth (longer) the referees' reports are, the
greater the publication improvements will be, resulting in an increase in
citations received. This result is important from both the point of view of
reviewers and that of journal's chiefseditors. Even if it is not a remunerated
activity, it is important that it be more valued at least within the framework
of research evaluation exercises, given its positive impact on science.
