Quantifying the effect of editor–author relations on manuscript handling times

Scientometrics

Volumn 113, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 609-631

  Sarigöl, Emre ^a   Garcia, David ^a   Scholtes, Ingo ^a   Schweitzer, Frank ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Collaboration networks; Editorial processes; Empirical studies; Peer review; Social aspects

Indexed keywords

EID: 85014310505     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2309-y     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Besancenot, D., Huynh, K. V., & Faria, J. R. (2012). Search and research: The influence of editorial boards on journals’ quality. Theory and Decision, 73(4), 687–702.
2. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). Extent of type I and type II errors in editorial decisions: A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4), 348–352.
3. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). The usefulness of peer review for selecting manuscripts for publication: A utility analysis taking as an example a high-impact journal. PLoS ONE, 5, e11344.
4. Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2006). Individual and collective determinants of academic scientists productivity. Information Economics and Policy, 18(1), 55–72.
5. Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6. Crane, D. (1967). The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals. The American Sociologist, 2(4), 195–201.
7. Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature News, 515(7528), 480.
8. Garcia, J., Rodriguez-Sanchez, R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2015). The authoreditor game. Scientometrics, 104(1), 361–380.
9. Lange, L., & Frensch, P. (1999). Gaining scientific recognition by position: Does editorship increase citation rates? Scientometrics, 44(3), 459–486.
10. Levy, H., Huang, Y., Wolf, A., & Wolf, Y. (2014). Editor citation: An alleged instance of social-professional desirability. Journal of Scientometric Research, 3(1), 46–56.
11. Lin, Z., Hou, S., & Wu, J. (2016). The correlation between editorial delay and the ratio of highly cited papers in Nature, Science and Physical Review Letters. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1457–1464.
12. Merton, R. (1968). Social theory and social structure (Enlarged ed.). New York: Free Press.
13. Pautasso, M., & Schäfer, H. (2010). Peer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals. Scientometrics, 84(2), 307–315.
14. Sarigöl, E., Pfitzner, R., Scholtes, I., Garas, A., & Schweitzer, F. (2014). Predicting scientific success based on coauthorship networks. EPJ Data Science, 3, 9.
15. Shen, S., Rousseau, R., Wang, D., Zhu, D., Liu, H., & Liu, R. (2015). Editorial delay and its relation to subsequent citations: The journals nature, science and cell. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1867–1873.
16. Siler, K., Lee, K., & Bero, L. (2015). Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(2), 360–365.
17. Yegros, A. Y., & Amat, C. B. (2009). Editorial delay of food research papers is influenced by authors’ experience but not by country of origin of the manuscripts. Scientometrics, 81(2), 367–380.
18. Zsindely, S., Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1982). Citation patterns of editorial gatekeepers in international chemistry journals. Scientometrics, 4(1), 69–76.