Rejections and the importance of first response times
AbstractPrevious studies about the academic publishing process consider the publication delay as starting from the submission to the publishing journal. This ignores the potential delay caused by rejections received from previous journals. Knowing how many times papers are submitted prior to publication is essential for evaluating the importance of different publication delays and the refereeing process cost, and can improve our decisions about if and how the review process should be altered, decisions that affect the productivity of economists and other scholars. Using numerical analysis and evidence on acceptance rates of various journals, estimates that most manuscripts are submitted between three and six times prior to publication. This implies that the first response time (the time between submission and first editorial decision) is much more important than other parts of the publication delay, suggesting important policy implications for editors and referees.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Emerald Group Publishing in its journal International Journal of Social Economics.
Volume (Year): 31 (2004)
Issue (Month): 3 (March)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.emeraldinsight.com
Postal: Emerald Group Publishing, Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley, BD16 1WA, UK
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Ofer H. Azar, 2005.
"The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?,"
Southern Economic Journal,
Southern Economic Association, vol. 72(2), pages 482â491, October.
- Azar, Ofer H., 2002.
"Evolution of social norms with heterogeneous preferences: A general model and an application to the academic review process,"
4482, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Azar, Ofer H., 2008. "Evolution of social norms with heterogeneous preferences: A general model and an application to the academic review process," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 420-435, March.
- Moizer, Peter, 2009. "Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 285-304, February.
- Francesc Pujol, 2008.
"Ranking Journals Following a Matching Model Approach: An Application to Public Economics Journals,"
Journal of Public Economic Theory,
Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 10(1), pages 55-76, 02.
- Francesc Pujol, . "Ranking Journals Following a Matching Model Approach. An Application to Public Economics Journals," Faculty Working Papers 12/06, School of Economics and Business Administration, University of Navarra.
- Holm, Håkan J., 2011. "Double-blind in light of the internet: A note on author anonymity," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 24-26, March.
- Lee, Sam-Ho, 2009. "A theory of self-selection in a market with matching frictions: An application to delay in refereeing times in economics journals," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 344-360, October.
- Damien Besancenot & Kim Huynh & Joao Faria, 2012. "Search and research: the influence of editorial boards on journals’ quality," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 687-702, October.
- Ofer H. Azar, 2007.
"The Slowdown In First-Response Times Of Economics Journals: Can It Be Beneficial?,"
Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 179-187, 01.
- Azar, Ofer H., 2002. "The slowdown in first-response times of economics journals: Can it be beneficial?," MPRA Paper 4478, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?," General Economics and Teaching 0502069, EconWPA.
- Berg, Nathan & Faria, Joao, 2008. "Negatively correlated author seniority and the number of acknowledged people: Name-recognition as a signal of scientific merit?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1234-1247, June.
- Heintzelman Martin & Nocetti Diego, 2009. "Where Should we Submit our Manuscript? An Analysis of Journal Submission Strategies," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-28, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Virginia Chapman).
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.