IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jamest/v47y1996i4p302-310.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Have referees rejected some of the most‐cited articles of all times?

Author

Listed:
  • Juan Miguel Campanario

Abstract

In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most‐cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10.7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles. © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan Miguel Campanario, 1996. "Have referees rejected some of the most‐cited articles of all times?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 47(4), pages 302-310, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jamest:v:47:y:1996:i:4:p:302-310
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199604)47:43.0.CO;2-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199604)47:43.0.CO;2-0
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199604)47:43.0.CO;2-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zaharie, Monica Aniela & Osoian, Codruţa Luminiţa, 2016. "Peer review motivation frames: A qualitative approach," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 69-79.
    2. Marco Seeber, 2020. "How do journals of different rank instruct peer reviewers? Reviewer guidelines in the field of management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1387-1405, March.
    3. Eric W. K. Tsang & Bruno S. Frey, 2006. "The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas," CREMA Working Paper Series 2006-09, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    4. Elisabeth Maria Schlagberger & Lutz Bornmann & Johann Bauer, 2016. "At what institutions did Nobel laureates do their prize-winning work? An analysis of biographical information on Nobel laureates from 1994 to 2014," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 723-767, November.
    5. Louis Mesnard, 2010. "On Hochberg et al.’s “The tragedy of the reviewer commons”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 903-917, September.
    6. Moizer, Peter, 2009. "Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 285-304, February.
    7. Si Shen & Ronald Rousseau & Dongbo Wang & Danhao Zhu & Huoyu Liu & Ruilun Liu, 2015. "Editorial delay and its relation to subsequent citations: the journals Nature, Science and Cell," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1867-1873, December.
    8. Dilger, Alexander, 2019. "Begutachtungsverfahren nach Zahl, Gewichtung und Fehlern der Gutachten," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 2/2019, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jamest:v:47:y:1996:i:4:p:302-310. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.