Capitalizing on order effects in the bids of peer-reviewed conferences to secure reviews by expert referees

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 64, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 405-415

  Cabanac, Guillaume ^a   Preuss, Thomas ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE TOULOUSE   (France)

^b BRANDENBURG UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Germany)

Author keywords

refereeing; scholarly publishing

Indexed keywords

HIGH QUALITY PAPERS; OBJECTIVE CRITERIA; PEER REVIEW; PROGRAM COMMITTEE; PUBLIC TRUST; REFEREEING; SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING; SUBJECTIVE FACTORS;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

PAPER;

EID: 84872933602     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.22747     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Becker, S.L., (1954). Why an order effect. Public Opinion Quarterly, 18 (3), 271-278. doi: 10.1086/266516
2. Benos, D.J., Bashari, E., Chaves, J.M., Gaggar, A., Kapoor, N., LaFrance, M.,., Zotov, A., (2007). The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in Physiology Education, 31 (2), 145-152. doi: 10.1152/advan.00104.2006
3. Borgman, C.L., (2012). The conundrum of sharing research data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63 (6), 1059-1078. doi: 10.1002/asi.22634
4. Bruine de Bruin, W., (2005). Save the last dance for me: Unwanted serial position effects in jury evaluations. Acta Psychologica, 118 (3), 245-260. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.08.005
5. Bruine de Bruin, W., (2006). Save the last dance II: Unwanted serial position effects in figure skating judgments. Acta Psychologica, 123 (3), 299-311. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.01.009
6. Bruine de Bruin, W., &;, Keren, G., (2003). Order effects in sequentially judged options due to the direction of comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92 (1-2), 91-101. doi: 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00080-3
7. Chen, J., &;, Konstan, J.A., (2010). Conference paper selectivity and impact. Communications of the ACM, 53 (6), 79-83. doi: 10.1145/1743546.1743569
8. Craswell, N., Zoeter, O., Taylor, M., &;, Ramsey, B., (2008). An experimental comparison of click position-bias models. WSDM ('08): Proceedings of the first ACM international conference on web search and data mining (pp. 87-94). New York: ACM.
9. Cronin, B., (2011). Peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (7), 1215. doi: 10.1002/asi.21565
10. Fasolo, B., Carmeci, F.A., &;, Misuraca, R., (2009). The effect of choice complexity on perception of time spent choosing: When choice takes longer but feels shorter. Psychology and Marketing, 26 (3), 213-228. doi: 10.1002/mar.20270
11. Freyne, J., Coyle, L., Smyth, B., &;, Cunningham, P., (2010). Relative status of journal and conference publications in Computer Science. Communications of the ACM, 53 (11), 124-132. doi: 10.1145/1839676.1839701
12. Hanson, B., Sugden, A., &;, Alberts, B., (2011). Making data maximally available. Science, 331 (6018), 649. doi: 10.1126/science.1203354
13. Hartvigsen, D., Wei, J.C., &;, Czuchlewski, R., (1999). The conference paper-reviewer assignment problem. Decision Sciences, 30 (3), 865-876. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1999.tb00910.x
14. Li, Y., &;, Epley, N., (2009). When the best appears to be saved for last: Serial position effects on choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22 (4), 378-389. doi: 10.1002/bdm.638
15. Likert, R., (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22 (140), 1-55.
16. Mantonakis, A., Rodero, P., Lesschaeve, I., &;, Hastie, R., (2009). Order in choice: Effects of serial position on preferences. Psychological Science, 20 (11), 1309-1312. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02453.x
17. McGill, R., Tukey, J.W., &;, Larsen, W.A., (1978). Variations of box plots. The American Statistician, 32 (1), 12-16. doi: 10.2307/2683468
18. Miller, J.M., &;, Krosnick, J.A., (1998). The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62 (3), 291-330. doi: 10.1086/297848
19. Rodriguez, M.A., Bollen, J., &;, Van de Sompel, H., (2007). Mapping the bid behavior of conference referees. Journal of Informetrics, 1 (1), 68-82. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2006.09.006
20. Wang, F., Chen, B., &;, Miao, Z., (2008). A survey on reviewer assignment problem. In, N. Nguyen, L. Borzemski, A. Grzech, &;, M. Ali, (Eds.), IEA/AIE ('08): Proceedings of the 21st international conference on industrial, engineering and other applications of applied intelligent systems (Vol. 5027, pp. 718-727). Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-69052-8-75
21. Wing, J.M., &;, Chi, E.H., (2011). Reviewing peer review. Communications of the ACM, 54 (7), 10-11. doi: 10.1145/1965724.1965728
22. Zuckerman, H., &;, Merton, R.K., (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9 (1), 66-100. doi: 10.1007/BF01553188