The validity of staff editors' initial evaluations of manuscripts: A case study of Angewandte Chemie International Edition

Scientometrics

Volumn 85, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 681-687

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

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Peer review; Staff editor's initial evaluation; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 77958493414     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0215-7     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Allison, P. D. (1980). Inequality and scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 10(2), 163-179.
2. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (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., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008b). Functional use of frequently and infrequently cited articles in citing publications. A content analysis of citations to articles with low and high citation counts. European Science Editing, 34(2), 35-38.
4. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008c). 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., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008d). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45-80.
6. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). The luck of the referee draw: The effect of exchanging reviews. Learned Publishing, 22(2), 117-125.
7. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). The manuscript reviewing process-empirical research on review requests, review sequences and decision rules in peer review. Library & Information Science Research, 32(1), 5-12.
8. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Marx, W., Schier, H., Daniel, H.-D. (submitted). A multilevel modelling approach to investigating the predictive validity of editorial decisions: Do the editors of a high-impact journal select manuscripts that are highly cited after publication?.
9. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Neuhaus, C., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Use of citation counts for research evaluation: Standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 93-102.
10. Craig, I. D., Plume, A. M., McVeigh, M. E., Pringle, J., & Amin, M. (2007). Do open access articles have greater citation impact? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 239-248.
11. Gölitz, P. (2005). Who is going to read all this? Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 44(35), 5538-5541.
12. Lokker, C., McKibbon, K. A., McKinlay, R. J., Wilczynski, N. L., & Haynes, R. B. (2008). Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study. British Medical Journal, 336(7645), 655-657.
13. McNemar, Q. (1947). Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika, 12, 153-157.
14. StataCorp. (2007). Stata statistical software: release 10. College Station, TX, USA: Stata Corporation.
15. van Raan, A. F. J. (2004). Measuring science. Capita selecta of current main issues. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S& T systems (pp. 19-50). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
16. Wager, E., Parkin, E., & Tamber, P. (2006). Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Medicine, 4(1), 13.