Analyzing the association between referees' recommendations and editors' decisions

Scientometrics

Volumn 67, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 15-26

  Hargens, Lowell L ^a   Herting, Jerald R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33644918910     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-006-0048-6     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. AGRESTI, A. (1984), Analysis of Ordinal Categorical Data, Wiley, New York.
2. BAKANIC, V., MCPHAIL, C., SIMON, R. J. (1987), The manuscript review and decision-making process, American Sociological Review, 52 : 631-642.
3. BISHOP, C. T. (1984), How to Edit a Scientific Journal, ISI Press, Philadelphia, PA.
4. BLALOCK, H. M. Jr. (1979), Social Statistics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
5. CBE JOURNAL AND PRACTICES COMMITTEE (1987), Editorial Forms: A Guide to Journal Management. Council of Biology Editors, Bethesda, MD.
6. CICCHETTI, D. V. (1991), The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14 : 119-186.
7. CLOGG, C. C. (1982), Using association models in sociological research: Some examples, American Journal of Sociology, 88: 114-134.
8. CLOGG, C. C., SHIHADEH, E. S. (1994), Statistical Models for Ordinal Variables, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
9. DANIEL, H.-D. (1993), Guardians of Science: Fairness and Reliability of Peer Review, VCH Publishers, New York.
10. ELIASON, S. C. (2005), The CDAS Homepage, http://www.soc.umn.edu/ %7Eeliason/index_files/CDAS_Homepage.htm
11. GOODMAN, L. A. (1984), The Analysis of Cross-Classified Data Having Ordered Categories, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA.
12. GOODMAN, L. A. (1985), The analysis of cross-classified data having ordered and/or unordered categories: Association models, correlation models, and asymmetry models for contingency tables with or without missing entries, Annals of Statistics, 13 : 10-69.
13. GOODMAN, L. A. (1987), New methods for analyzing the intrinsic character of qualitative variables using cross-classified data, American Journal of Sociology, 93 : 529-583.
14. HARGENS, L. L. (1988), Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review, 53:139-151.
15. HARGENS, L. L. (1990), Variation in journal peer review systems: Possible causes and consequences. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263 : 1348-1352.
16. HARGENS, L. L., HERTING, J. R. (1990), A new approach to referees' assessments of manuscripts, Social Science Research, 19 : 1-16.
17. LOCK, S. (1986), A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine, ISI Press, Philadelphia, PA.
18. MORTON, H. C., PRICE, A. J. (1986), The ACLS survey of scholars: Views on publications, computers, libraries, Scholarly Communication, 5 : 1-16.
19. OPTHOF, T., CORONEL, R., JANSE, M. J. (2002), The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: Priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias, Cardiovascular Research, 56 : 339-346.
20. WELLER, A. C. (2001), Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses, Information Today, Inc., Medford, NJ.