  Amidst the ever-expanding realm of scientific production and the
proliferation of predatory journals, the focus on peer review remains paramount
for scientometricians and sociologists of science. Despite this attention,
there is a notable scarcity of empirical investigations into the tangible
impact of peer review on publication quality. This study aims to address this
gap by conducting a comprehensive analysis of how peer review contributes to
the quality of scholarly publications, as measured by the citations they
receive.Utilizing an adjusted dataset comprising 57,482 publications from
Publons to Web of Science and employing the Raking Ratio method, our study
reveals intriguing insights. Specifically, our findings shed light on a nuanced
relationship between the length of reviewer reports and the subsequent
citations received by publications. Through a robust regression analysis, we
establish that, beginning from 947 words, the length of reviewer reports is
significantly associated with an increase in citations.These results not only
confirm the initial hypothesis that longer reports indicate requested
improvements, thereby enhancing the quality and visibility of articles, but
also underscore the importance of timely and comprehensive reviewer reports.
Furthermore, insights from Publons' data suggest that open access to reports
can influence reviewer behavior, encouraging more detailed reports.Beyond the
scholarly landscape, our findings prompt a reevaluation of the role of
reviewers, emphasizing the need to recognize and value this resource-intensive
yet underappreciated activity in institutional evaluations. Additionally, the
study sounds a cautionary note regarding the challenges faced by peer review in
the context of an increasing volume of submissions, potentially compromising
the vigilance of peers in swiftly assessing numerous articles.
