IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jamist/v58y2007i5p734-743.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rejecting highly cited papers: The views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists

Author

Listed:
  • Juan Miguel Campanario
  • Erika Acedo

Abstract

We studied the views of scientists who experience resistance to their new ideas by surveying a sample of 815 scientists who are authors of highly cited articles. The 132 responses (16.2%) received indicated that only 47 scientists (35.6%) had no problems with referees, editors, or other scientists. The most common causes of difficulty were rejection of the manuscript, and scepticism, ignorance, and incomprehension. The most common arguments given by referees against papers were that the findings were an insufficient advance to warrant publication, lacked practical impact, were based on a wrong hypothesis, or were based on a wrong concept. The strategies authors used to overcome resistance included obtaining help from someone to publish problematic papers, making changes in the text, and simple persistence. Despite difficulties, however, some respondents acknowledged the positive effect of peer review.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan Miguel Campanario & Erika Acedo, 2007. "Rejecting highly cited papers: The views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(5), pages 734-743, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jamist:v:58:y:2007:i:5:p:734-743
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.20556
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20556
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.20556?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. Benda, Wim G.G. & Engels, Tim C.E., 2011. "The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 166-182.
    2. Stephen A Gallo & Joanne H Sullivan & Scott R Glisson, 2016. "The Influence of Peer Reviewer Expertise on the Evaluation of Research Funding Applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, October.
    3. Marco Seeber & Jef Vlegels & Mattia Cattaneo, 2022. "Conditions that do or do not disadvantage interdisciplinary research proposals in project evaluation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(8), pages 1106-1126, August.
    4. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    5. Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Citation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 851-862, June.
    6. Rodrigo Costas & Thed N. Leeuwen & Anthony F. J. Raan, 2011. "The “Mendel syndrome” in science: durability of scientific literature and its effects on bibliometric analysis of individual scientists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 177-205, October.
    7. Thomas Heinze, 2013. "Creative accomplishments in science: definition, theoretical considerations, examples from science history, and bibliometric findings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 927-940, June.
    8. Benda, Wim G.G. & Engels, Tim C.E., 2011. "The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 166-182, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Jacqueline N. Lane & Ina Ganguli & Patrick Gaule & Eva Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani, 2021. "Engineering serendipity: When does knowledge sharing lead to knowledge production?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(6), pages 1215-1244, June.
    11. Juan Miguel Campanario, 2009. "Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel Laureates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 549-565, November.

    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:jamist:v:58:y:2007:i:5:p:734-743. 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.