Reviewer and editor biases in journal peer review: An investigation of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie International Edition

Research Evaluation

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 262-272

  Bornmann, Lutz ^a   Daniel, Hans Dieter ^a,b  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77449108681     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/095820209X477520     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Anon 2007. Gatekeepers of science. Interview with Peter Stern, editor at Science magazine. B.I.F. Futura, 22(1), 14-18.
2. Bornmann, L and H-D Daniel 2008a. 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), 7173-7178.
3. Bornmann, L and H-D Daniel 2008b. 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), 1841-1852.
4. Bornmann, L and H-D Daniel 2009a. Extent of type I and type II errors in editorial decisions: a case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4), 348-352.
5. Bornmann, L and H-D Daniel 2009b. The luck of the referee draw: the effect of exchanging reviews. Learned Publishing, 22(2), 117-125.
6. Bornmann, L and H-D Daniel 2009c, in press. The manuscript reviewing process - empirical research on review requests, review sequences and decision rules in peer review. Library and Information Science Research.
7. Bornmann, L, W Marx, H Schier, E Rahm, A Thor and H D Daniel 2009a. 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), 27-35.
8. Bornmann, L, C Weymuth and H-D Daniel 2009b, 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 lowor high-impact journal differ?, Scientometrics.
9. Brant, R 1990. Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Biometrics, 46(4), 1171-1178.
10. Budden, A E, L Aarssen, J Koricheva, R Leimu, C J Lortie and T Tregenza 2008. Response to Whittaker: challenges in testing for gender bias. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, 23(9), 480-481.
11. Cleveland, W S 1979. Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 829-836.
12. Cole, S and R Fiorentine 1991. Discrimination against women in science: the confusion of outcome with process. In The outer Circle: Women in the Scientific Community, eds. H Zuckerman, J R Cole and J T Bruer, pp. 205-226. London: W W Norton.
13. Craig, I D, A M Plume, M E McVeigh, J Pringle and M Amin 2007. Do open access articles have greater citation impact? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 239-248.
14. 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.
15. Daniel, H-D 2005. Publications as a measure of scientific advancement and of scientists' productivity. Learned Publishing, 18, 143-148.
16. Ernst, E and T Kienbacher 1991. Chauvinism. Nature, 352(6336), 560.
17. Geisler, E 2001. The mires of research evaluation. Scientist, 15(10), 39.
18. Godlee, F and K Dickersin 2003. Bias, subjectivity, chance, and conflict of interest. In Peer Review in Health Sciences, eds. F Godlee and J Jefferson, pp. 91-117. London, UK: BMJ Publishing Group.
19. Hojat, M, J S Gonnella and A S Caelleigh 2003. Impartial judgment by the 'gatekeepers' of science: fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 8(1), 75-96.
20. Jayasinghe, U W, H W Marsh and N Bond 2003. A multilevel cross-classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A - Statistics in Society, 166, 279-300.
21. Laband, D N and M J Piette 1994. Favoritism versus search for good papers: empirical evidence regarding the behavior of journal editors. Journal of Political Economy, 102(1), 194-203.
22. Lee, K P, E A Boyd, J M Holroyd-Leduc, P Bacchetti and L A Bero 2006. Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals. Medical Journal of Australia, 184(12), 621-626.
23. Lindsey, D 1989. Using citation counts as a measure of quality in science: measuring what's measurable rather than what's valid. Scientometrics, 15(3-4), 189-203.
24. Long, J S 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.
25. Long, J S and J Freese 2006. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. College Station, TX, USA: Stata Press.
26. Lortie, C J, L W Aarssen, A E Budden, J K Koricheva, R Leimu and T Tregenza 2007. Publication bias and merit in ecology. Oikos, 116(7), 1247-1253.
27. Marsh, H W, U W Jayasinghe and N W Bond 2008. Improving the peer-review process for grant applications - reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist, 63(3), 160-168.
28. Merton, R K, 1942. Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1, 115-126.
29. Mosteller, F and J W Tukey 1977. Data Analysis and Regression: a Second Course in Statistics. Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley.
30. Peters, D P and S J Ceci 1982. Peer-review practices of psychological journals - the fate of accepted, published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(2), 187-195.
31. Rabe-Hesketh, S and A Skrondal 2008. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata. College Station, TX, USA: Stata Press.
32. Schroter, S, L Tite, A Hutchings and N Black 2006. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(3), 314-317.
33. Sense about Science 2004. Peer Review and the Acceptance of New Scientific Ideas. London, UK: Sense about Science.
34. Shadish, W R, T D Cook and D T Campbell 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, MA, USA: Houghton Mifflin.
35. StataCorp. 2007. Stata Statistical Software: Release 10. College Station, TX, USA: Stata Corporation.
36. Van Raan, A F J 1996. Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics, 36(3), 397-420.
37. Wager, E, E C Parkin and P S Tamber 2006. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Medicine, 4(13).
38. Weller, A C 2002. Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Medford, NJ, USA: Information Today, Inc.