Assessing peer review by gauging the fate of rejected manuscripts: the case of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation

Scientometrics

Volumn 113, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 533-546

  Casnici, Niccolò ^a   Grimaldo, Francisco ^b   Gilbert, Nigel ^c   Dondio, Pierpaolo ^d   Squazzoni, Flaminio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRESCIA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SURREY   (United Kingdom)

^d DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Citations; Impact factor; JASSS; Peer review; Rejected manuscripts

Indexed keywords

EID: 85014192480     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2241-1     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Armstrong, A. W., Idriss, S. Z., Kimball, A. B., & Bernhard, J. D. (2008). Fate of manuscripts declined by the journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 58(4), 632–635.
2. Baum, J. A. C. (2011). Free-riding on power laws: Questioning the validity of the impact factor as a measure of research quality in organization studies. Organization, 18(4), 449–466. doi:10.1177/1350508411403531.
3. Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 197–245. doi:10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112.
4. Bornmann, L., Herich, H., Joos, H., & Daniel, H. D. (2012). In public peer review of submitted manuscripts, how do reviewer comments differ from comments written by interested members of the scientific community? A content analysis of comments written for atmospheric chemistry and physics. Scientometrics, 93(3), 915–929. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0731-8.
5. Bornmann, L., Weymuth, C., & Daniel, H. D. (2010). 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, 83(2), 493–506. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0011-4.
6. Casnici, N., Grimaldo, F., Gilbert, N., & Squazzoni, F. (2016). Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. doi:10.1002/asi.23665.
7. Chew, F. S. (1991). Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology, 156(3), 627–632.
8. Clair, J. A. (2015). Toward a bill of rights for manuscript submitters. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(1), 111–131. doi:10.5465/amle.2013.0371.
9. Cowley, S. J. (2015). How peer-review constrains cognition: On the frontline in the knowledge sector. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1706. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01706/abstract.
10. Hall, S. A., & Wilcox, A. J. (2007). The fate of epidemiologic manuscripts: A study of papers submitted to epidemiology. Epidemiology, 18(2), 262–265.
11. Holliday, E. B., et al. (2015). Fate of manuscripts rejected from the red journal. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 91(1), 3–10. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.10.003.
12. Jefferson, T., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA, 287(21), 2786. doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2786.
13. Khosla, A., McDonald, R. J., Bornmann, L., & Kallmes, D. F. (2011). Getting to yes: The fate of neuroradiology manuscripts rejected by radiology over a 2-year period. Radiology, 260(1), 3–5.
14. Lamont, M., Mallard, G., & Guetzkow, J. (2009). Fairness as appropriateness: Negotiating epistemological differences in peer review. Science, Technology and Human Values, 34(5), 573–606.
15. Liesegang, T. J., Shaikh, M., & Crook, J. E. (2007). The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 143(4), 551–560.
16. Ma, Z., et al. (2013). A quantitative study on the effectiveness of peer review for academic journals. Scientometrics, 95(1), 1–13. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0879-2.
17. McDonald, R. J., Cloft, H. J., & Kallmes, D. F. (2007). Fate of submitted manuscripts rejected from the American Journal of Neuroradiology: Outcomes and commentary. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 28(8), 1430–1434.
18. McDonald, R. J., Cloft, H. J., & Kallmes, D. F. (2009). Fate of manuscripts previously rejected by the American Journal of Neuroradiology: A follow-up analysis. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 30(2), 253–256.
19. Nedić, O., & Dekanski, A. (2016). Priority criteria in peer review of scientific articles. Scientometrics, 107(1), 15–26. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1869-6.
20. Nemery, B. (2001). What happens to the manuscripts that have not been accepted for publication in occupational and environmental medicine? Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 58(9), 604–607.
21. Opthof, T., Furstner, F., Van Geer, M., & Coronel, R. (2000). Regrets or no regrets? No regrets! The fate of rejected manuscripts. Cardiovascular Research, 45(1), 255–258.
22. Pontille, D., & Torny, D. (2015). From manuscript evaluation to article valuation: The changing technologies of journal peer review. Human Studies, 38(1), 57–79. doi:10.1007/s10746-014-9335-z.
23. Powell, Kendall. (2016). Does it take too long to publish research? Nature, 530(7589), 148–151. doi:10.1038/530148a.
24. Radicchi, F. (2012). In science ‘there is no bad publicity’: Papers criticized in comments have high scientific impact. Scientific Reports, 2, 25–27.
25. Ragone, A., Mirylenka, K., Casati, F., & Marchese, M. (2013). On peer review in computer science: Analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement. Scientometrics, 97(2), 317–356. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1002-z.
26. Ray, J., Berkwits, M., & Davidoff, F. (2000). The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal. American Journal of Medicine, 109(2), 131–135.
27. Silberzweig, J. E., & Khorsandi, A. S. (2008). Outcomes of rejected journal of vascular and interventional radiology manuscripts. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology: JVIR, 19(11), 1620–1623.
28. Siler, K., Lee, K., & Bero, L. (2015). Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(2), 360–365. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418218112.
29. Squazzoni, F., & Casnici, N. (2013). Is social simulation a social science outstation? A bibliometric analysis of the impact of jasss. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 16(1), 10. doi:10.18564/jasss.2192.
30. Verleysen, F. T., & Engels, T. C. E. (2014). Internationalization of peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed book publications in the social sciences and humanities. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1431–1444. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1267-x.
31. Vinther, S., & Rosenberg, J. (2011). Fate of manuscripts rejected by a non-english-language general medical journal: A retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open, 1(1), e000147. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000147.
32. Walker, R., & Rocha da Silva, P. (2015). Emerging trends in peer review—A survey. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9, 169.
33. Weller, A. C. (2002). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses. Medford, NJ: Information Today Inc.
34. Wijnhoven, B. P. L., & Dejong, C. H. C. (2010). Fate of manuscripts declined by the British Journal of Surgery. British Journal of Surgery, 97(3), 450–454.