Rejecting highly cited papers: The views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 58, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 734-743

  Campanario, Juan Miguel ^a   Acedo, Erika ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALCALÁ   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS; SOCIAL ASPECTS;

MANUSCRIPT; PEER REVIEWS; WARRANT PUBLICATION;

INFORMATION ANALYSIS;

EID: 33947365152     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.20556     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Barber, B. (1961). Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery. Science. 134, 596-602.
2. Berman, R.M., Capiello, A., Anand, A., Oren, D.A., Heninger, G.R., Charney, D.S., et al. (2000). Antidepressant effects of ketamine in depressed patients. Biological Psychiatry, 47(4), 351-354.
3. Campanario, J.M. (1993). Consolation for the scientist: Sometimes it is hard to publish papers that are later highly-cited. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 342-362.
4. Campanario, J.M. (1995). Commentary: On influential books and journal articles initially rejected because negative referees' evaluations. Science Communication, 16(3), 304-325.
5. Campanario, J.M. (1996). Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(4), 302-310.
6. Campanario, J.M. (1997). The 'journal scout'. The Scientist, 11(10), 9.
7. Campanario, J.M. (1998a). Peer review for journals as it stands today-Part 1. Science Communication, 19(3), 181-211.
8. Campanario, J.M. (1998b). Peer review for journals as it stands today-Part 2. Science Communication, 19(4), 277-306.
9. Campanario, J.M. (2002a). The parallelism between scientists' and students' resistance to new scientific ideas. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10), 1095-1110.
10. Campanario, J.M. (2002b). A new approach to make scientific journals actively compete for good manuscripts. European Science Editing, 28(3), 78-79.
11. Campanario, J.M. (2007). Rejecting Nobel Class Papers (in revision). Retrieved from http://www.uah.es/otrosweb/jmc
12. Campanario, J.M., & Acedo, E. (2004, June). Advantages of two new approaches for scientific e-publishing. Paper presented at the ICCC 8th International Conference on Electronic Publishing, Brasilia, Brasil.
13. Campanario, J.M., & Martin, B. (2003). Rejected but available. European Science Editing, 29(3), 73.
14. Campanario, J.M., & Martin, B. (2004). Challenging dominant Physics paradigms. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 18(3), 421-438.
15. Elitzur, A.C. (2002). Launching a new journal, Electronic Journal of Mathematics and Physics, 1(1), 8-11. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from http:// www.emis.ams.org/journals/EJMAPS/volume_1_1/editorials/E4.htm
16. Garfield, E. (1989a). Delayed recognition in scientific discovery: Citation frequency analyses aids the search for case histories. Current Contents. 23, 3-9. Retrieved from http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu
17. Garfield, E. (1989b). More delayed recognition. Part 1. Examples from the genetics of color blindness, the entropy of short-term memory, phosphoinositides, and polymer rheology. Current Contents, 38, 3-8. Retrieved from http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu
18. Garfield, E. (1990). More delayed recognition. Part 2. From inhibin to scanning electron microscopy. Current Contents, 9, 3-9. Retrieved from http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu
19. Horrobin, D.F. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(1010), 1438-1441.
20. Hook, E.B. (2002) Prematurity in Scientific Discovery: On resistance and neglect. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
21. Koelsch, C.F. (1957). Syntheses with triarylvinylmagnesium bromides, α-γ-bisdiphenylene-β-phenylallyl, a stable free radical, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 79(16), 4439-4441.
22. Laughlin, R.B. (1998). Autobiography. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1998Aaughlin-autobio.html
23. Lock, S. (1985). Letter to P.B.S. Fowler, British Medical Journal, 290(6481), 1560.
24. Martin, B. (1996). Confronting the Experts. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
25. Martin, B. (1998). Strategies for dissenting scientists. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 12(4), 605-616.
26. Martin, B. (1999a). Suppression of dissent in science. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 7, 105-135.
27. Martin, B. (1999b). Suppressing research data: methods, context, accountability, and responses. Accountability in Research, 6, 333-372.
28. Nissani, M. (1995). The plight of the obscure innovator in science: A few reflections on Campanario's note. Social Studies of Science, 25(1), 165-183.
29. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.
30. Simon, R.J., Bakanic, V., & McPhail, C. 1986. Who complains to journal editors and what happens. Sociological Inquiry, 56, 259-271.
31. Sommer, T.J. (2001). Suppression of scientific research: Bahramdipity and Nulltiple Scientific Discoveries. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(1). 77-104.
32. Stent, G.S. (1972). Prematurity and uniqueness in scientific discovery. Scientific American, 227, 84-93.
33. Stent, G.S. (2002). Prematurity in scientific discovery. In E.B. Hook (Ed.), Prematurity in Scientific Discovery. On resistance and neglect (pp. 22-36). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
34. Wilson, J.D. (1978). Peer review and publication. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 61(6), 1697-1701.