Search

This article introduces a symposium on Social Spaces and Field Boundaries in Reputation Formation, which includes four sociological articles. Here, we have provided a general context to the symposium by discussing reputation research and exploring new sociological directions. Despite its importance to understand cooperation in various social contexts (e.g., groups, populations, and organizations), and its centrality in many socially constructed systems of evaluation (e.g., online markets, science, and intellectual professions), reputation is still under-investigated in sociology. At the same time, current reputation research in other disciplines, such as behavioral sciences, evolutionary biology, and management studies, neglects the importance of sociological factors, including the role of contextual features and boundary conditions across various social fields. This symposium aims to tackle these challenges by presenting a selection of articles that focus on the uniqueness of reputation-driven human cooperation, the relationship between social evaluations and governance failures, the gender dimension of reputation, and the role of reputation repair in international politics. We believe that these articles offer a compact overview of the different ways in which social evaluations can contribute to explain social dynamics. By considering different levels of analysis, i.e., micro, meso and macro levels, they can stimulate sociological research and debate on this important topic.

Abstract Background A previous meta-analysis (Kuiper et al., 2016) has shown that multiple aspects of social relationships are associated with cognitive decline in older adults. Yet, results indicated possible bias in estimations of statistical effects due to the heterogeneity of study design and measurements. We have updated this meta-analysis adding all relevant publications from 2012 to 2020 and performed a cumulative meta-analysis to map the evolution of this growing field of research (+80% of studies from 2012-2020 compared to the period considered in the previous meta-analysis). Methods Scopus and Web of Science were searched for longitudinal cohort studies examining structural, functional and combined effects of social relationships. We combined Odds Ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random effects meta-analysis and assessed sources of heterogeneity and the likelihood of publication bias. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Quality of Prognosis Studies in Systematic Reviews (QUIPS) tool. Results The review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019130667). We identified 34 new articles published in 2012-2020. Poor social relationships were associated with cognitive decline with increasing precision of estimates compared to previously reviewed studies [(for structural, 17 articles, OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.08; 1.14) (for functional, 16 articles, OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.05; 1.20) (for combined, 5 articles, OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.06; 1.24)]. Meta-regression, risk and subgroup analyses showed that the precision of estimations improved in recent studies mostly due to increased sample sizes. Conclusions Our cumulative meta-analysis would confirm that multiple aspects of social relationships are associated with cognitive decline. Yet, there is still evidence of publication bias and relevant information on study design is often missing, which could lead to an over-estimation of their statistical effects.

In this essay the editors-in-chief reflect on recent development of the journal and introduce the Symposium on Revising. We at Sociologica do not aim to be a major journal of sociology, but we do aspire to be a leading journal. Here we briefly gesture to four areas in which we aspire to leadership. These include: identifying vital topics for sociological debate; offering an alternative editorial model where the review process is not regarded as gate keeping; promoting greater diversity of formats for presenting sociological ideas beyond the one-size-fits-all model of Introduction – Theory – Data & Methods – Findings – Discussion – Conclusion; and presenting critical reflections on the practice of sociology.

How can sociologists observe a war "in the making"? In issuing an "instant call for papers," the editors of Sociologica suggest three lines of research: the semantics and the symbolic representation of war (of any war, but especially of this war); how political, military, economic, and social options and alternatives enter and exit the realm of the possible in connection with shifts in war semantics; how our understanding of "the day after," that is of the future after the war is over, binds and even determines decisions in the present.

Improving the methodological rigour and the quality of data analysis in manuscripts submitted to journals is key to ensure the validity of scientific claims. However, there is scant knowledge of how manuscripts change throughout the review process in academic journals. Here, we examined 27 467 manuscripts submitted to four journals from the Royal Society (2006–2017) and analysed the effect of peer review on the amount of statistical content of manuscripts, i.e. one of the most important aspects to assess the methodological rigour of manuscripts. We found that manuscripts with both initial low or high levels of statistical content increased their statistical content during peer review. The availability of guidelines on statistics in the review forms of journals was associated with an initial similarity of statistical content of manuscripts but did not have any relevant implications on manuscript change during peer review. We found that when reports were more concentrated on statistical content, there was a higher probability that these manuscripts were eventually rejected by editors.

Reviewers do not only help editors to screen manuscripts for publication in academic journals; they also serve to increase the rigor and value of manuscripts by constructive feedback. However, measuring this developmental function of peer review is difficult as it requires fine-grained data on reports and journals without any optimal benchmark. To fill this gap, we adapted a recently proposed quality assessment tool and tested it on a sample of 1.3 million reports submitted to 740 Elsevier journals in 2018–2020. Results showed that the developmental standards of peer review are shared across areas of research, yet with remarkable differences. Reports submitted to social science and economics journals show the highest developmental standards. Reports from junior reviewers, women and reviewers from Western Europe are generally more developmental than those from senior, men and reviewers working in academic institutions outside Western regions. Our findings suggest that increasing the standards of peer review at journals requires effort to assess interventions and measure practices with context-specific and multi-dimensional frameworks.

This comment on the essay “The Empirical Investigation of Non-Linear Dynamics in the Social World. Ontology, Methodology and Data”, by Graham Room, focuses on the challenge of understanding institutional change in complex social systems. It discusses the evolutionary foundations of Room’s “Contingent Historical Model” by questioning the bio-social divide on selection mechanisms. It concentrates on Room’s concept of temporalities of institutional change and discusses the role of noise.

The effectiveness of public health measures to prevent COVID-19 contagion has required less vulnerable citizens to pay an individual cost in terms of personal liberty infringement to protect more vulnerable groups. However, the close relationship between scientific experts and politicians in providing information on COVID-19 measures makes it difficult to understand which communication source was more effective in increasing pro-social behaviour. Here, we present an online experiment performed in May 2020, during the first wave of the pandemic on 1131 adult residents in Lombardy, Italy, one of the world's hardest hit regions. Results showed that when scientific experts recommended anti-contagion measures, participants were more sensitive to pro-social motivations, unlike whenever these measures were recommended by politicians and scientific experts together. Our findings suggest the importance of trusted sources in public communication during a pandemic.

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an unusually high submission rate of scholarly articles. Given that most academics were forced to work from home, the competing demands for familial duties may have penalized the scientific productivity of women. To test this hypothesis, we looked at submitted manuscripts and peer review activities for all Elsevier journals between February and May 2018-2020, including data on over 5 million authors and referees. Results showed that during the first wave of the pandemic, women submitted proportionally fewer manuscripts than men. This deficit was especially pronounced among more junior cohorts of women academics. The rate of the peer-review invitation acceptance showed a less pronounced gender pattern with women taking on a greater service responsibility for journals, except for health & medicine, the field where the impact of COVID-19 research has been more prominent. Our findings suggest that the first wave of the pandemic has created potentially cumulative advantages for men.

Peer review is often criticized for being flawed, subjective and biased, but research into peer review has been hindered by a lack of access to peer review reports. Here we report the results of a study in which text-analysis software was used to determine the linguistic characteristics of 472,449 peer review reports. A range of characteristics (including analytical tone, authenticity, clout, three measures of sentiment, and morality) were studied as a function of reviewer recommendation, area of research, type of peer review and reviewer gender. We found that reviewer recommendation had the biggest impact on the linguistic characteristics of reports, and that area of research, type of peer review and reviewer gender had little or no impact. The lack of influence of research area, type of review or reviewer gender on the linguistic characteristics is a sign of the robustness of peer review.

To increase transparency in science, some scholarly journals have begun publishing peer review reports. Here, the authors show how this policy shift affects reviewer behavior by analyzing data from five journals piloting open peer review.

This editorial note turns the attention of sociology to the immediate and pressing present of the COVID-19 pandemic with the aim of understanding the potentially long-term consequences of this extraordinary moment. We suggest to focus on important topics such as the meaning of social change related to COVID-19, the newly emerging social practices due to lockdown measures, the emotional and cognitive impact of the absence of important social rituals, and the political and social effects of enhanced surveillance in our societies. We offer Sociologica as an open forum to host contributions on these topics or on other research questions connected with the COVID-19 crisis.

An editorial introduction to a tribute to Alessandro Pizzorno.

In the previous issue of Sociologica, 13(1), 2019, we published a provocative essay by Philippe Schmitter, "Vices and Virtues of ‘Populisms’." As part of our commitment to sociological debate, we invited comments by five leading scholars in the field.

This paper examines research on peer review between 1969 and 2015 by looking at records indexed from the Scopus database. Although it is often argued that peer review has been poorly investigated, we found that the number of publications in this field doubled from 2005. A half of this work was indexed as research articles, a third as editorial notes and literature reviews and the rest were book chapters or letters. We identified the most prolific and influential scholars, the most cited publications and the most important journals in the field. Co-authorship network analysis showed that research on peer review is fragmented, with the largest group of co-authors including only 2.1% of the whole community. Co-citation network analysis indicated a fragmented structure also in terms of knowledge. This shows that despite its central role in research, peer review has been examined only through small-scale research projects. Our findings would suggest that there is need to encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing across different research communities.

Organizational routines are means through which organizations can reutilize best practices and so their replication, i.e., duplicating beneficial routines across context, is a key value-creating strategy. However, it is difficult to map network effects on routine replication. Here, we investigated routine replicating dynamics considering two types of network contexts, namely, (1) connections between different (geographically distributed) units in a decentralized organization and (2) the coupling relation between routines, i.e., a bundle of different routines involved in each unit. By considering routine replication as one kind of template-based activities between different units, we examined interrelations between routines with a NK-based fitness landscape model. Our results show that when there is an appropriate level of absorptive capacities (i.e., when organizations are capable of identifying and acquiring externally generated knowledge), there is an optimal combination of these two types of networks, which is beneficial to routine replicating practices and organization adaptation. Furthermore, we also found that intraorganizational variations, including template-duplicating errors and innovative activities, are instrumental to enhance adaptive changes. Our findings suggest measures to control and manage best practice diffusion across organizations.

This paper looks at 800,000 messages on the Unicredit stock, exchanged by 7,500 investors in the Finanzaonline.com forum, between 2005 and 2012 and measured collective interpretations of stock market trends. We examined the correlation patterns between market uncertainty, bad news and investors' network structure by measuring the investors' communication patterns. Our results showed that the investors' network reacted to market trends in different ways: While less turbulent market phases implied less communication, higher market volatility generated more complex communication patterns. While the information content of messages was less technical in situations of uncertainty, bad news caused more informative messages only when market volatility was lower. This meant that bad news had a different impact on network behaviour, depending on market uncertainty. By measuring the investors' expertise, we found that their behaviour could help predict changes in daily stock returns. We also found that expert investors were more influential in communication processes during high volatility market phases, whereas they had less influence on the real-time forum's reaction after bad news. Our findings confirm the crucial role of e-communication platforms. However, they also show the need to reconsider the fragility of these collective intelligence systems when under external shocks.

Any trust situation involves a certain amount of risk for trustors that trustees could abuse. In some cases, intermediaries exist who play a crucial role in the exchange by providing reputational information. To examine under what conditions intermediary opinion could have a positive impact on cooperation, we designed two experiments based on a modified version of the investment game where intermediaries rated the behaviour of trustees under various incentive schemes and different role structures. We found that intermediaries can increase trust if there is room for indirect reciprocity between the involved parties. We also found that the effect of monetary incentives and social norms cannot be clearly separable in these situations. If properly designed, monetary incentives for intermediaries can have a positive effect. On the one hand, when intermediary rewards are aligned with the trustor’s interest, investments and returns tend to increase. On the other hand, fixed monetary incentives perform less than any other incentive schemes and endogenous social norms in ensuring trust and fairness. These findings should make us reconsider the mantra of incentivization of social and public conventional policy.

Commons dilemmas are interaction situations where a common good is provided or exploited by a group of individuals so that optimal collective outcomes clash with private interests. Although in these situations, social norms and institutions exist that might help individuals to cooperate, little is known about the interaction effects between positive and negative incentives and exit options by individuals. We performed a modified public good game experiment to examine the effect of exit, rewards and punishment, as well as the interplay between exit and rewards and punishment. We found that punishment had a stronger effect than rewards on cooperation if considered by itself, whereas rewards had a stronger effect when combined with voluntary participation. This can be explained in terms of the 'framing effect', i.e., as the combination of exit and rewards might induce people to attach higher expected payoffs to cooperative strategies and expect better behaviour from others.

This paper looks at the relationship between negative news and stock markets in times of global crisis, such as the 2008/2009 period. We analysed one year of front page banner headlines of three financial newspapers, the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and Il Sole24ore to examine the influence of bad news both on stock market volatility and dynamic correlation. Our results show that the press and markets influenced each other in generating market volatility and in particular, that the Wall Street Journal had a crucial effect both on the volatility and correlation between the US and foreign markets. We also found significant differences between newspapers in their interpretation of the crisis, with the Financial Times being significantly pessimistic even in phases of low market volatility. Our results confirm the reflexive nature of stock markets. When the situation is uncertain and unpredictable, market behaviour may even reflect qualitative, big picture, and subjective information such as streamers in a newspaper, whose economic and informative value is questionable.