On Hochberg et al.'s "The tragedy of the reviewer commons"

Scientometrics

Volumn 84, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 903-917

  de Mesnard, Louis ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE BOURGOGNE   (France)

Author keywords

Editor; Hochberg; Publisher; Publishing; Referee; Reviewer; Tragedy of the Commons

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954954476     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0141-8     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. AEA. (2009). Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) classification system. American Economic Association. http://www. aeaweb. org/journal/jel_class_system. php.
2. Blank, R. M. (1991). The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: Experimental evidence from the American economic review. The American Economic Review, 81(5), 1041-1067.
3. Bloom, F. (1998). Human reviewers: The achilles heel of scientific journals in a digital era. Presented at INABIS '98--5th internet world congress on biomedical sciences at McMaster University, Canada, December, 7-16, keynote address. http://www. mcmaster. ca/inabis98/keynote/bloom/index. html.
4. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). 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.
5. Bornmann, L., Nast, I., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication. Scientometrics, 77(3), 415-432.
6. Bornmann, L., Weymuth, C., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). 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
7. Braun, T., & Dióspatonyi, I. (2005). The journal gatekeepers of major publishing houses of core science journals. Scientometrics, 64(2), 113-120.
8. Braun, T., Dióspatonyi, I., Zsindely, S., & Zádora, E. (2007). Gatekeeper index versus impact factor of science journals. Scientometrics, 71(3), 541-543.
9. Campanario, J. M. (1996). Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(4), 302-310.
10. Campanario, J. M. (2009). Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: Accounts by Nobel Laureates. Scientometrics. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-008-2141-5
11. Cicchetti, D. V. (1991). The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 119-186.
12. Egghe, L. (2008). A model for the size-frequency function of coauthor pairs. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2133-2137.
13. Finney, D. J. (1997). The responsible referee. Biometrics, 53(2), 715-719.
14. Fiske, D. W., & Fogg, L. (1990). But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper! Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. American Psychologist, 45(5), 591-598.
15. Fortescue, S. (1992). The Russian academy of sciences and the Soviet Academy of sciences: Continuity or disjunction? Minerva, 30(4), 459-478.
16. Frandsen, T. F., & Wouters, P. (2009). Turning working papers into journal articles: An exercise in microbibliometrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(4), 728-739.
17. Gans, J. H., & Shepherd, G. B. (1994). How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 165-179.
18. Hall, R. H. (1968). Professionalization and bureaucratization. American Sociological Review, 33(1), 92-104.
19. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.
20. Hargens, L. L., & Herting, J. R. (1990a). Neglected considerations in the analysis of agreement among journal referees. Scientometrics, 19(1-2), 91-106.
21. Hargens, L. L., & Herting, J. R. (1990b). A new approach to referee's assessments of manuscripts. Social Science Research, 19, 1-16.
22. Hargens, L. L., & Herting, J. R. (2006). Analyzing the association between referees' recommendations and editors' decisions. Scientometrics, 67(1), 15-26.
23. Hartley, J. (2005). Refereeing and the single author. Journal of Information Science, 31(3), 251-256.
24. Hauser, M., & Fehr, E. (2007). An incentive solution to the peer review problem. PLoS Biology, 5(4), e107. doi: 10. 1371/journal. pbio. 0050107.
25. Hochberg, M. E., Chase, J. M., Gotelli, N. J., Hastings, A., & Naeem, S. (2009). The tragedy of the reviewer commons. Ecology Letters, 12, 2-4.
26. Lee, J. D., Vicente, K. J., Cassano, A., & Shearer, A. (2003). Can scientific impact be judged prospectively? A bibliometric test of Simonton's model of creative productivity. Scientometrics, 56(2), 223-233.
27. Lindsey, D. (1988). Assessing precision in the manuscript review process: A little better than a diceroll. Scientometrics, 14(1-2), 75-82.
28. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30-43.
29. Mayo, N. E., Brophy, J., Goldberg, M. S., Klein, M. B., Miller, S., Platt, R. W., et al. (2006). Peering at peer review revealed high degree of chance associated with funding of grant applications. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59, 842-848.
30. McDonald, S., & Kam, J. (2007). Aardvark et al.: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Journal of Information Science, 33(6), 702-717
31. Min, H.-T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293-308.
32. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.
33. Nisonger, T. E. (2002). The relationship between international editorial board composition and citation measures in political science, business, and genetics journals. Scientometrics, 54(2), 257-268.
34. Patterson, M. S., & Harris, S. (2009). The relationship between reviewers' quality-scores and number of citations for papers published in the Journal Physics in Medicine and Biology from 2003-2005. Scientometrics, 80(2), 343-349.
35. Roberts, W. C. (2009). Reducing flaws in the review process of manuscripts submitted to medical journals for publication. American Journal Cardiology, 103, 891-892.
36. Schultz, D. M. (2009). Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate. Scientometrics. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-009-0084-0
37. Seglen, P. O. (1996). Quantification of scientific article contents. Scientometrics, 35(3), 355-366.
38. Snizek, W. E., & Fuhrman, E. R. (1979a). Some factors affecting the evaluative content of book reviews and sociology. The American Sociologist, 14, 108-114.
39. Snizek, W. E., & Fuhrman, E. R. (1979b). The evaluative content of book reviews in the American journal of sociology, contemporary sociology, and social forces. Contemporary Sociology, 8(3), 339-340.
40. Snizek, W. E., Fuhrman, E. R., & Wood, M. R. (1981). The effect of theory group association on the evaluative content of book reviews in sociology. The American Sociologist, 16, 185-195.
41. Süssmuth, B., Steininger, M., & Ghio, S. (2006). Towards a European economics of economics: Monitoring a decade of top research and providing some explanation. Scientometrics, 66(3), 579-612.
42. van Rees, C. J. (1987). How reviewers reach consensus on the value of literary works. Poetics, 16, 275-294.
43. von Mises, L. (1944). Bureaucracy. New Haven: Yale University Press. (third reprint of 1946).
44. Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses, ASIS& T monograph series. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.
45. Zi-Lin, H. (2009). International collaboration does not have greater epistemic authority. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 2151-2164.