Editors of peer-reviewed journals obtain recommendations from peer reviewers as guidance in deciding upon the suitability
of a submitted manuscript for publication. To investigate whether the number of reviewers used by an editor affects the rate
at which manuscripts are rejected, 500 manuscripts submitted to Monthly Weather Review during 15.5 months in 2007–2008 were examined. Two and three reviewers were used for 306 and 155 manuscripts, respectively
(92.2% of all manuscripts). Rejection rates for initial decisions and final decisions were not significantly different whether
two or three reviewers were used. Manuscripts with more reviewers did not spend more rounds in review or have different rejection
rates at each round. The results varied by editor, however, with some editors rejecting more two-reviewer manuscripts and
others rejecting more three-reviewer manuscripts. Editors described using their scientific expertise in the decision-making
process, either in determining the number of reviews to be sought or in making decisions once the reviews were received, approaches
that differ from that of relying purely upon reviewer agreement as reported previously in the literature. A simple model is
constructed for three decision-making strategies for editors: rejection when all reviewers recommend rejection, rejection
when any reviewer recommends rejection, and rejection when a majority of reviewers recommend rejection. By plotting the probability
of reviewer rejection against the probability of editor rejection, the decision-making process can be graphically illustrated,
demonstrating that, for this dataset, editors are likely to reject a manuscript when any reviewer recommends rejection.
organizing several national symposia and workshops on Thermal Analysis. She has been one of editors of Proceedings of National Symposium on Thermal Analysis held biennially at various places in India during the period 1991 to 2010.