The luck of the referee draw: The effect of exchanging reviews

Learned Publishing

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 117-125

  Bornmann, Lutz ^a   Daniel, Hans Dieter ^b  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 68349084791     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/2009207     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Braun, T. Keeping the gates of science journals. Gatekeeping indicators of national performance in the sciences. In Moed H.F., Glänzel W. and Schmoch U., editors. Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems. Dordrecht, Kluwer, 2004, pp. 95-114.
2. Hames, I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management of Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Oxford, Blackwell, 2007.
3. Bornmann, L. and Daniel, H.-D. 2008. Selecting manuscripts for a high impact journal through peer review: a citation analysis of Communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59: 1841-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20901
4. Bornmann, L and Daniel, H.-D. 2008. The effectiveness of the peer review process: inter-referee agreement and predictive validity of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 47: 7173-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/anie.200800513
5. Gölitz, P. 2008. Appeals. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 47: 7144-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/anie.200803308
6. Kemsley, J. 2008. Is peer review honest? Chemical and Engineering News, 86: 48-9. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/86/8606sci1.html
7. Daniel, H.-D. Guardians of Science: Fairness and Reliability of Peer Review. Weinheim, Wiley-VCH, 1993. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/3527602208
8. Merton, R.K. 1957. Priorities in scientific discovery - a chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review, 22: 635-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2089193
9. Journal of the American Chemical Society, Guidelines for Authors. Available at: http://pubs.acs.org/paragonplus/submission/jacsat/jacsat_authguide.pdf (accessed 10 July 2008)
10. Neuhaus, C., Marx, W. and Daniel, H.-D. 2009. The publication and citation impact profiles of Angewandte Chemie and the Journal of the American Chemical Society based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts: a case study on the limitations of the Journal Impact Factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60: 176-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20960
11. Gölitz, P. 2005. Who is going to read all this? Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 44: 5538-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/anie.200502730
12. Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers. Current Practice in Peer Review. Worthing, Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, 2000. Available at http://www.alpsp.org/ForceDownload.asp?id=140
13. Angewandte Chemie-International Edition, Guidelines for referees for Communications. Available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/26737/home//2002_web_ref.html (accessed 11 June 2008)
14. von Eye, A. and Mun, E. Y. Analyzing Rater Agreement: Manifest Variable Methods. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005.
15. Fleiss, J. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 3rd edition. New York, Wiley VCH, 2003.
16. Brennan R.L. and Prediger, D.J. 1981. Coefficient kappa: some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41: 687-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001316448104100307.
17. Weller, A.C. Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Medford, NJ, Information Today, Inc., 2002.
18. Fletcher, R.H. and Fletcher, S.W. The effectiveness of journal peer review. In Godlee, F. and Jefferson, T., editors. Peer review in health sciences, 2nd edition. London, BMJ Books, 2003, pp. 62-75.