Rejection rates for journals publishing in the atmospheric sciences

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

Volumn 91, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 231-243

  Schultz, David M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE; JOURNAL PUBLISHING; PEER REVIEW; REJECTION RATES; SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS;

PUBLISHING;

EID: 77949965007     PISSN: 00030007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1175/2009BAMS2908.1     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Abt, H. A., 1988: What happens to rejected astronomical papers? Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 100, 506-508.
2. Archambault, É., and V. Larivière, 2009: History of the journal impact factor: Contingencies and consequences. Scientometrics, 79, 635-649.
3. Bakanic, V., C. McPhail, and R. J. Simon, 1987: The manuscript review and decision-making process. Amer. Social Rev., 52, 631-642.
4. Batchelor, G. K., 1981: Preoccupations of a journal editor. J. Fluid Mech., 106, 1-25.
5. Bergeron, T., 1959: Weather forecasting: Methods in scientific weather analysis: An outline in the history of ideas and hints at a program. The Atmosphere and the Sea in Motion, B. Bolin, Ed., The Rockefeller Institute Press, 440-474.
6. Bergstrom, T. C., 2001: Free labor for costly journals? J. Econ. Perspect., 15(3), 183-198.
7. Campbell, P., 2008: Escape from the impact factor. Ethics Sci. Environ. Politics, 8, 5-7.
8. Coe, R. K., and I. Weinstock, 1983: Evaluating the finance journals: The department chairperson's perspective. J. Financ. Res., 6, 345-349.
9. Cronin, B., 2005: A hundred million acts of whimsy? Curr. Sci., 89, 1505-1509. (Pubitemid 43170105)
10. Day, R. A., and B. Gastel, 2006: How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper. 6th ed. Cambridge University Press, 302 pp.
11. Doswell, C. A. III, L. R. Lemon, and R. A. Maddox, 1981: Forecaster training-A review and analysis. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 62, 983-988.
12. Drummond, C. W. E., and D. S. Reeves, 2005: Reduced time to publication and increased rejection rate. J. Antimicrob. Chemother., 55, 815-816.
13. Errico, R. M., 2000: On the lack of accountability in meteorological research. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 81, 1333-1337.
14. Famiglietti, J. S., 2007: Editorial- Geophysical Research Letters: New policies and features for AGU's top-cited journal. Eos, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, 88, 537.
15. Garfield, E., cited 2005: The agony and the ecstasy-The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. [Available online at www.garfield.library. upenn.edu/ papers/jifchicago2005.pdf.]
16. -, 2006: The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. J. Amer. Med. Assoc., 295, 90-93.
17. Greco, A. N., R. M. Wharton, H. Estelami, and R. F. Jones, 2006: The state of scholarly journal publishing: 1981-2000. J. Scholarly Publ., 37, 155-214.
18. Hargens, L. L., 1988: Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. Amer. Sociol. Rev., 53, 139-151.
19. Holmgren, M., and S. A. Schnitzer, 2004: Science on the rise in developing countries. PLoS Biol., 2, 10-13.
20. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 2006: Statement of retraction. Int. J. Remote Sens., 27, 3749-3750.
21. Jorgensen, D. P., R. M. Rauber, K. F. Heideman, M. E. Fernau, M. A. Friedman, and A. L. Schein, 2007: The evolving publication process of the AMS. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88, 1122-1134.
22. Koop, T., and U. Pöschl, cited 2006: Systems: An open, two-stage peer-review journal. Nature, doi:10.1038/ nature04988. [Available online at www.nature.com/ nature/peerreview/debate/nature04988.html.]
23. Koshland, D. E., 1985: An editor's quest (II). Science, 227, 249.
24. Leydesdorff, L., and P. Zhou, 2005: Are the contributions of China and Korea upsetting the world system of science? Scientometrics, 63, 617-630.
25. Lipton, W. J., 1998: The Science Editor's Soapbox. Science Soapbox, 93 pp.
26. Mély, B., M. A. El Kader, G. Dudognon, and Y. Okubo, 1998: Scientific publications of China in 1994: Evolution or revolution? Scientometrics, 42, 3-16.
27. Miller, A. C., and S. L. Serzan, 1984: Criteria for identifying a refereed journal. J. Higher Educ., 55, 673-699.
28. Montgomery, S. L., 2003: The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science. University of Chicago Press, 228 pp.
29. Opthof, T., R. Coronel, and M. J. Janse, 2002: The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: Priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias. Cardiovasc. Res., 56, 339-346.
30. Perelman, L. C., J. Paradis, and E. Barrett, 1998: The Mayfield Handbook of Technical & Scientific Writing. Mayfield Publishing, 508 pp. [Available online at http://web.mit.edu/writing/temp2/home.htm.]
31. Pöschl, U., 2004: Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and quality assurance. Learned Publ., 17, 105-113.
32. -, 2009: Interactive open access peer review: The Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics model. Against the Grain, 21(3), 26-32.
33. Roebber, P. J., 2005: Bridging the gap between theory and applications: An inquiry into atmospheric science teaching. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 86, 507-517.
34. Rossby, C.-G., 1934: Comments on meteorological research. J. Aeronaut. Sci., 1, 32-34.
35. Schultz, D. M., 2009a: Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate. Scientometrics, doi:10.1007/ s11192-009-0084-90, in press.
36. -, 2009b: Eloquent Science: A Practical Guide to Becoming a Better Writer, Speaker, and Atmospheric Scientist. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 440 pp.
37. Segal, M., R. Turner, and D. Yarger, 1995: On scientific electronic journals and conferences. Bull Amer. Meteor. Soc., 76, 2245-2246.
38. Seitter, K. L., 2002: Opening access to the AMS Journals Online. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 83, 1361.
39. Siegelman, S. S., 1991: Assassins and zealots: Variations in peer review. Radiology, 178, 637-642.
40. Stuart, N. A., D. M. Schultz, and G. Klein, 2007: Maintaining the role of humans in the forecast process: Analyzing the psyche of expert forecasters. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88, 1893-1898.
41. Thrower, P. A., 2007: Writing a scientific paper: I. Titles and abstracts. Carbon, 45, 2143-2144.
42. Thuburn, J., and M. Baldwin, 2008: Recent and future changes to the Quarterly Journal. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 134, 1949.
43. Todd, P. A., and R. J. Ladel, 2008: Hidden dangers of a 'citation culture.' Ethics Sci. Environ. Polit, 8, 13-16.
44. van Rooyen, S., F. Godlee, S. Evans, N. Black, and R. Smith, 1999: Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomised trial. Br. Med. J., 318, 23-27.
45. Walsh, E., M. Rooney, L. Appleby, and G. Wilkinson, 2000: Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial. Br. J. Psychiatry, 176, 47-51.
46. Weller, A. C., 2001: Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. ASIST Monogr. Series, Information Today, 342 pp.
47. Wilson, A. E., 2007: Journal impact factors are inflated. Bioscience, 57, 551-552.
48. Wu, G., H. Wang, and D.-L. Zhang, 2004: Retraction and editorial statement. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 21, 382.
49. Zhou, P., and L. Leydesdorff, 2006: The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Res. Policy, 35, 83-104.
50. Zuckerman, H., and R. K. Merton, 1971: Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9, 66-100.