Refereeing and the single author

Journal of Information Science

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 251-256

  Hartley, James ^a  

^a KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Academic writing; Acknowledgements; Co authors; Collaborative writing; Conference papers; Editors; Publication lags; Referees; Reviewers

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK; DATA REDUCTION; EDUCATION; PSYCHOLOGY COMPUTING;

ACADEMIC WRITING; ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS; CO-AUTHORS; COLLABORATIVE WRITING; CONFERENCE PAPERS; EDITORS; PUBLICATION LAGS; REFEREES; REVIEWERS;

INFORMATION DISSEMINATION;

EID: 30644475974     PISSN: 01655515     EISSN: 17416485     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0165551505052474     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. B. Cronin, D. Shaw and K. La Barre, A cast of thousands: coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly literature of Psychology and Philosophy, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54(9) (2003) 855-71.
2. B.-A. Lipetz, Aspects of JASIS authorship through five decades, Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50(11) (1999) 994-1003.
3. B. Fisher, C.T. Cobane, T.M. Vander Ven and F.T. Cullen, How many authors does it take to publish an article? Trends and patterns in Political Science, PS Online. Available at: www.apsanet.org/PS/dec98/fisheretal.cfm) (accessed 11 January 2005).
4. G. Lewison and J. Hartley, What's in a title? Numbers of words and presence of a colon, Scientometrics 63(2) (2005) (in press).
5. K.B. Wray, The epistemic significance of collaborative research, Philosophy of Science 69 (2002) 150-68.
6. A.C. Weller, Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses (American Society for Information Science and Technology, Medford, New Jersey, 2001).
7. D.D. Beaver, Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority? Scientometrics 60(3) (2004) 399-408.
8. J. Hartley, J.W. Pennebaker and C. Fox, Using new technology to assess the academic writing styles of male and female pairs and individuals, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 33(3) (2003) 243-61.
9. J. Hartley, On requesting conference papers electronically, Journal of Information Science 30(5) (2004) 475-79.
10. G.M Huemer, T. Bauer, R. Gurunluoglu, C. Sakho, M. Oehlbauer and K.M. Dunst, Analysis of publications in three plastic surgery journals for the year 2002, Plastic and Reconstruction Surgery 114(5) (2004) 1147-54.
11. P. Stolk, A.C.B. Egberts and H.G.M. Leufkens, Fate of abstracts presented at five international conferences on pharmacoepidemiology (ICPE): 1955-1999, Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 11(2) (2002) 105-11.
12. J. Hartley, Single authors are not alone: colleagues often help, Scholarly Communication 34(2) (2003) 108-13.
13. A.P. Moller and M.D. Jennions, Testing and adjusting for publication bias, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16(10) (2001) 580-86.
14. M Shirabe and H. Tormizawa, Likelihood of inbound/outbound access to co-authorship, Scientometrics 59(3) (2004) 337-44.
15. R.W. Scherer and P. Langenberg, Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library 4 (2004) (Update Software, Oxford). [Paper available from the author, R.W. Scherer, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 2120, USA (rscherer@epi.umaryland.edu).]
16. G. Yu, D. Yu and Y. Li, The universal expression of periodical average publication delay at steady state, Scientometrics 60(2) (2004) 121-9.
17. J.D. Miller, Quick peer review for $125, The Scientist, April 20 (2004). Available at: www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040420/02 (accessed 20 December 2004).
18. A.S. Gerber, D.P. Green and D. Nickerson, Testing for publication bias in political science, Political Analysis 9(4) (2001) 385-392.
19. R. Hubbard and J.S. Armstrong, Are null results becoming an endangered species in marketing? Marketing Letters 3(2) (1992) 127-36.