Too many journals? Towards a theory of repeated rejections and ultimate acceptance

Scientometrics

Volumn 103, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 261-265

  Oosterhaven, Jan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Rejection rates; Scientific journals; Ultimate acceptance

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925484838     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1527-4     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Altman, Y., & Baruch, Y. (2008). Strategies for revising and resubmitting papers to refereed journals. British Journal of Management,19, 89–101.
2. Fein, C. (2013). Multidimensional journal evaluation of PLOS ONE. Libri,63(4), 259–271.
3. Kochar, M. S. (1986). Second thoughts: The peer review of manuscripts—in need for improvement. Journal of Chronical Diseases,39(2), 147–149.
4. Nikaido, H. (1970). Introduction to sets and mappings in modern economics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
5. Pautasso, M., & Schaefer, H. (2010). Peer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals. Scientometrics,84(2), 307–315.
6. Perry, S. D. (2008). Keeping our research up to date: Is the election cycle too fast for scholarship? Mass Communication & Society,11, 113–114.
7. Stephen, T. D. (2012). Helping communication programs represent their strength. The Electronic Journal of Communication,22(1–2), 1–6.
8. Sugimoto, C. R., Lariviere, V., & Ni, C. (2013). Journal acceptance rates: A cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measures. Journal of Informetrics,7(4), 897–906.
9. Yamazaki, S. (1995). Refereeing system of 29 life-science journals preferred by Japanese scientists. Scientometrics,33(1), 123–129.