The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review

Library and Information Science Research

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 5-12

  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: 73949116137     PISSN: 07408188     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.lisr.2009.07.010     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Anon. Is peer review honest?. C&EN Peer Review 86 6 (2008) 48-49
2. Bakanic V., McPhail C., and Simon R.J. The manuscript review and decision-making process. American Sociological Review 52 5 (1987) 631-642
3. Bedeian A.G. Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning and Education 3 2 (2004) 198-216
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. The luck of the referee draw: The effect of exchanging reviews. Learned Publishing 22 2 (2009) 117-125
7. Bornmann L., Marx W., Schier H., Rahm E., Thor A., and Daniel H.D. Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistry: Citation counts for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published elsewhere, using Google Scholar, Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts. Journal of Informetrics 3 1 (2009) 27-35
8. Bornmann L., Mutz R., and Daniel H.-D. Latent Markov modeling applied to grant peer review. Journal of Informetrics 2 3 (2008) 217-228
9. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). The influence of the applicants' gender on the modeling of a peer review process by using latent Markov models. Scientometrics, 81(2), 407-411.
10. Bornmann, L., Weymuth, C., & Daniel, H.-D. (in press). A content analysis of referees' comments: How do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ? Scientometrics, doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0011-4.
11. 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. (Eds). Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (2004), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands 95-114
12. Campanario J.M., and Acedo E. 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 58 5 (2007) 734-743
13. Clark T., and Wright M. Reviewing journal rankings and revisiting peer reviews: Editorial perspectives. Journal of Management Studies 44 4 (2007) 612-621
14. Cox N.J. Speaking Stata: Spineplots and their kin. Stata Journal 8 1 (2008) 105-121
15. Daniel H.-D. Guardians of science: Fairness and reliability of peer review (1993), Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany
16. Daniel H.-D. Publications as a measure of scientific advancement and of scientists' productivity. Learned Publishing 18 (2005) 143-148
17. Daniel H.-D., Mittag S., and Bornmann L. The potential and problems of peer evaluation in higher education and research. In: Cavalli A. (Ed). Quality Assessment for Higher Education in Europe (2007), Portland Press, London 71-82
18. Fletcher R.H., and Fletcher S.W. The effectiveness of journal peer review. In: Godlee F., and Jefferson T. (Eds). Peer review in health sciences. 2. ed., (2003), BMJ Books, London 62-75
19. Fogg L., and Fiske D.W. Foretelling the judgments of reviewers and editors. American Psychologist 48 3 (1993) 293-294
20. Gilbert, N. (2009). Editor will quit over hoax paper. Retrieved July 2, 2009, from http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090615/full/news.2009.571.html
21. Godlee, F. (2000). Peer review in the e-environment. Retrieved November 29, 2008, from http://www.biomedcentral.com/meetings/2000/foi/transcripts/godlee
22. Gölitz P. Alchema & Angewandte. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 42 18 (2003) 1986-1988
23. Gölitz P. Nothing stands still. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 43 1 (2004) 4-6
24. Gölitz P. Who is going to read all this?. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 44 35 (2005) 5538-5541
25. Gosden H. 'Why not give us the full story?': Functions of referees' comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2 2 (2003) 87-101
26. Hargens L.L. Variation in journal peer review systems: Possible causes and consequences. Journal of the American Medical Association 263 10 (1990) 1348-1352
27. Knorr-Cetina K. The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science (1981), Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK
28. Koop T., and Pöschl U. Systems: An open, two-stage peer-review journal. The editors of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics explain their journal's approach. Nature (2006) 10.1038/nature04988
29. Lock S. A difficult balance: Editorial peer review in medicine. (1985), ISI Press, Philadelphia, PA
30. Myers G. Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. (1990), The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI
31. Petty R.E., and Fleming M.A. The review process at PSPB: Correlates of interreviewer agreement and manuscript acceptance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25 2 (1999) 188-203
32. Pöschl U. Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and quality assurance. Learned Publishing 17 2 (2004) 105-113
33. Roberts L.W., Coverdale J., Edenharder K., and Louie A. How to review a manuscript: A "Down-to-Earth" approach. Academic Psychiatry 28 2 (2004) 81-87
34. Rowbottom D.P. Intersubjective corroboration. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 39 1 (2008) 124-132
35. Sense about Science. Peer review and the acceptance of new scientific ideas. (2004), Sense about Science, London
36. Simon R.J., Bakanic V., and Mcphail C. Who complains to journal editors and what happens. Sociological Inquiry 56 2 (1986) 259-271
37. Sonnert G. What makes a good scientist? Determinants of peer evaluation among biologists. Social Studies of Science 25 1 (1995) 35-55
38. Sperschneider T., Kleinert S., and Horton R. Appealing to editors?. Lancet 361 9373 (2003) 1926-1926
39. Starbuck W.H. How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science 16 2 (2005) 180-200
40. Sternberg R.J., Hojjat M., Brigockas M.G., and Grigorenko E.L. Getting in: Criteria for acceptance of manuscripts in Psychological Bulletin, 1993-1996. Psychological Bulletin 121 2 (1997) 321-323
41. Wager E., Parkin E., and Tamber P. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Medicine 4 1 (2006)
42. Weller A.C. Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses. (2002), Information Today, Inc, Medford, NJ, USA
43. Zuckerman H., and Merton R.K. Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of referee system. Minerva 9 1 (1971) 66-100