Extent of type I and type II errors in editorial decisions: A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 348-352

  Bornmann, Lutz ^a   Daniel, Hans Dieter ^b  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Citation counts; Editorial decision; Manuscript selection process; Predictive validity; Type I error; Type II error

Indexed keywords

EID: 68649083222     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2009.05.002     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Abelson P.H. Scientific communication. Science 209 4452 (1980) 60-62
2. Bornmann L., and Daniel H.-D. Convergent validation of peer review decisions using the h index: extent of and reasons for type I and type II errors. Journal of Informetrics 1 3 (2007) 204-213
3. Bornmann L., and Daniel H.-D. Functional use of frequently and infrequently cited articles in citing publications. A content analysis of citations to articles with low and high citation counts. European Science Editing 34 2 (2008) 35-38
4. Bornmann L., and Daniel H.-D. The effectiveness of the peer review process: inter-referee agreement and predictive validity of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 47 38 (2008) 7173-7178
5. Bornmann L., and Daniel H.-D. 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 11 (2008) 1841-1852
6. Bornmann L., and Daniel H.-D. What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation 64 1 (2008) 45-80
7. Bornmann L., and Daniel H.-D. The luck of the referee draw: The effect of exchanging reviews. Learned Publishing 22 2 (2009) 117-125
8. Bornmann L., Wallon G., and Ledin A. Does the committee peer review select the best applicants for funding? An investigation of the selection process for two European Molecular Biology Organization programmes. PLoS One 3 10 (2008) e3480
9. Cole S. Making science. Between nature and society (1992), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA
10. Craig I.D., Plume A.M., McVeigh M.E., Pringle J., and Amin M. Do open access articles have greater citation impact? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics 1 3 (2007) 239-248
11. Cronin B., and McKenzie G. The trajectory of rejection. Journal of Documentation 48 3 (1992) 310-317
12. Daniel, H.-D. (1993/2004). Guardians of science. Fairness and reliability of peer review. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH. Published online 16 July 2004, Wiley Interscience, doi:10.1002/3527602208.
13. Dewitt T.W., Nicholson R.S., and Wilson M.K. Science citation index and chemistry. Scientometrics 2 4 (1980) 265-275
14. Leimu R., and Koricheva J. What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers?. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20 1 (2005) 28-32
15. Lokker C., McKibbon K.A., McKinlay R.J., Wilczynski N.L., and Haynes R.B. Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study. British Medical Journal 336 7645 (2008) 655-657
16. Merton R.K. The Matthew effect in science. Science 159 3810 (1968) 56-63
17. Ray J., Berkwits M., and Davidoff F. The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal. American Journal of Medicine 109 2 (2000) 131-135
18. Rousseeuw P.J. Why the wrong papers get published. Chance 4 1 (1991) 41-43
19. Seglen P.O. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal 314 7079 (1997) 498-502
20. Shatz D. Peer review: A critical inquiry (2004), Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, USA
21. Starbuck W.H. How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science 16 2 (2005) 180-200
22. Straub D.W. Thirty years of service to the IS profession: time for renewal at MISQ?. MIS Quarterly 32 1 (2008) iii-viii
23. Straub D.W. Type II reviewing errors and the search for exciting papers. MIS Quarterly 32 2 (2008) V-X
24. Weller A.C. Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses (2002), Information Today, Inc., Medford, NJ, USA