Reviewer recommendations and editors' decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot?

Biological Conservation

Volumn 186, Issue , 2015, Pages 22-27

  Campos Arceiz, Ahimsa ^a   Primack, Richard B ^b   Koh, Lian Pin ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM MALAYSIA CAMPUS   (Malaysia)

^b USA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Chinese authors; Editorial decision; English speaking authors; Immediate rejection; Inter reviewer agreement; Major revision; Manuscript review; Minor revision

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION PLANNING; DECISION MAKING; RESEARCH WORK; THEORETICAL STUDY;

CHINA;

EID: 84924954578     PISSN: 00063207     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Baethge C., Franklin J., Mertens S. Substantial agreement of referee recommendations at a general medical journal - a peer review evaluation at deutsches ärzteblatt international. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e61401. 10.1371/journal.pone.0061401.t005.
2. Bornmann L., Mutz R., Daniel H.-D. A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: a multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants. PLoS ONE 2010, 5:e14331. 10.1371/journal.pone.0014331.t003.
3. Ehara S., Takahashi K. Reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to AJR by international authors. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2007, 188:W113-W116. 10.2214/AJR.06.0448.
4. Jackson J.L., Srinivasan M., Rea J., Fletcher K.E., Kravitz R.L. The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal. PLoS ONE 2011, 6:e22475. 10.1371/journal.pone.0022475.t001.
5. Kravitz R.L., Franks P., Feldman M.D., Gerrity M., Byrne C., Tierney W.M. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?. PLoS ONE 2010, 5(e10072):2013. 10.1371/journal.pone.0010072.t001.
6. Landers, R.N., 2011. Computing Intraclass Correlations (ICC) as Estimates of Interrater Reliability in SPSS. < (accessed 7.01.15). http://neoacademic.com/2011/11/16/computing-intraclass-correlations-icc-as-estimates-of-interrater-reliability-in-spss/.
7. Landis J.R., Koch G.C. Measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33:159-174.
8. Lee C.J., Sugimoto C.R., Zhang G., Cronin B. Bias in peer review. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 2012, 64:2-17. 10.1002/asi.22784.
9. Pohlert, T., 2014. The Pairwise Multiple Comparison of Mean Ranks Package (PMCMR). R package. <. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/PMCMR/vignettes/PMCMR.pdf.
10. Primack R.B. Editorial: why did we reject your article?. Biol. Conservation 2009, 142:1559.
11. Primack R.B., Marrs R. Editorial: bias in the review process. Biol. Conservation 2008, 141:1219-1220.
12. Primack R.B., Ellwood E., Miller-Rushing A.J., Marrs R., Mulligan A. Do gender, nationality, or academic age affect review decisions? An analysis of submissions to the journal biological conservation. Biol. Conservation 2009, 142:2415-2418.
13. R Core Team, 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. <. http://www.R-project.org/.
14. Revelle, W., 2014. Psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. R package. <, Version = 1.4.8. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych.
15. Uebersax, J., 2007. Intraclass Correlation and Related Methods. < (accessed 7.01.15). http://john-uebersax.com/stat/icc.htm.
16. Xie Y., Zhang C., Lai Q. China's rise as a major contributor to science and technology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2014, 111:9437-9442.