Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 248 items for :

  • Mathematics and Statistics x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All

Abstract  

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.

Restricted access

Introduction When we consider the editors as “gatekeepers” (Crane 1967 ) we often forget that they too, in order to advance in their professional careers, from time to time must pass through the gates they keep. In order to do

Restricted access

Abstract  

The representation of scientists from different countries in the editorial boards of the most influential journals from 48 fields of biomedical and clinical research was studied. Scientists from the USA were best represented, followed by scientists from the UK, FRG, Switzerland, Japan, Sweden, Canada, The Netherlands and Italy. The scientifically most productive countries provided most of the editors. For Dutch editors a strong correlation was found between the number of editorships held and the number of papers authored or measures of scientific eminence. Conceivably, scientific productivity and eminence may be important reasons for being asked as an editor. However, national biases play a role too in the composition of editorial boards.

Restricted access

Abstract  

Letters to the editor published in theLancet during the first half of 1980 were less cited than the corresponding papers. The average number of citations per letter was larger if the letter contained some substantive information. The longer the letter the more frequently it was cited. Letters that react to some previous publication tend to be shorter than spontaneous letters. Reacting letters tend to be less cited than spontaneous letters if they are short, more cited if they are longer. Letters with substantive information tend to originate outside the UK in which case they are also more cited.

Restricted access

Abstract  

This paper investigates the extent to which staff editors’ evaluations of submitted manuscripts—that is, internal evaluations carried out before external peer reviewing—are valid. To answer this question we utilized data on the manuscript reviewing process at the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition. The results of this study indicate that the initial internal evaluations are valid. Further, it appears that external review is indispensable for the decision on the publication worthiness of manuscripts: (1) For the majority of submitted manuscripts, staff editors are uncertain about publication worthiness; (2) there is a statistically significant proportional difference in “Rejection” between the editors' initial evaluation and the final editorial decision (after peer review); (3) three-quarters of the manuscripts that were rated negatively at the initial internal evaluation but accepted for publication after the peer review had far above-average citation counts.

Restricted access
Scientometrics
Authors: Tanzila Ahmed, Ben Johnson, Charles Oppenheim, and Catherine Peck
Restricted access
Scientometrics
Authors: B. S. Kademani, V. L. Kalyane, Vijai Kumar, and Lalit Mohan

Without Abstract

Restricted access

Without Abstract

Restricted access