Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate

Scientometrics

Volumn 84, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 277-292

  Schultz, David M ^a  

^a FINNISH METEOROLOGICAL INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Editor; Journal; Monthly Weather Review; Peer review; Reviewer agreement; Rounds of reviews

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953721558     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0084-0     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). The luck of the referee draw: The effect of exchanging reviews. Learned Publishing, 22, 117-125.
2. Cicchetti, D. V. (1991). Reflections from the peer review mirror. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(1), 167-186.
3. Eberley, S., & Warner, W. K. (1990). Fields or subfields of knowledge: Rejection rates and reviewer agreement in peer review. The American Sociologist, 21(3), 217-231.
4. Ernst, E., Saradeth, T., & Resch, K. L. (1993). Drawbacks of peer review. Nature, 363, 296.
5. Frey, B. S. (2003). Publishing as prostitution?-Choosing between one's own ideas and academic success. Public Choice, 116, 205-223.
6. Glenn, N. D. (1976). The journal article review process: Some proposals for change. The American Sociologist, 11, 179-185.
7. Hargens, L. L. (1988). Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review, 53, 139-151.
8. Hargens, L. L., & Herting, J. R. (1990). Neglected considerations in the analysis of agreement among journal referees. Scientometrics, 19(1-2), 91-106.
9. Jorgensen, D. P., Rauber, R. M., Heideman, K. F., Fernau, M. E., Friedman, M. A., & Schein, A. L. (2007). The evolving publication process of the AMS. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 88, 1122-1134.
10. Lindsey, D. (1988). Assessing precision in the manuscript review process: A little better than a dice roll. Scientometrics, 14(1-2), 75-82.
11. O'Brien, R. M. (1991). The reliability of composites of referee assessments of manuscripts. Social Science Research, 20, 319-328.
12. Schultz, D. M. (2009). Rejection rates for journals publishing atmospheric science. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90, accepted with revisions.
13. Seitter, K. L. (2002). Opening access to the AMS Journals Online. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 83, 1361.
14. Strayhorn, J., Jr., McDermott, J. F., Jr., & Tanguay, P. (1993). An intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 947-952.
15. Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses (342 pp.). Medford, NJ: ASIST Monograph Series, Information Today, Inc.
16. Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9, 66-100.