IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v84y2010i2d10.1007_s11192-009-0084-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate

Author

Listed:
  • David M. Schultz

    (University of Helsinki, and Finnish Meteorological Institute)

Abstract

Editors of peer-reviewed journals obtain recommendations from peer reviewers as guidance in deciding upon the suitability of a submitted manuscript for publication. To investigate whether the number of reviewers used by an editor affects the rate at which manuscripts are rejected, 500 manuscripts submitted to Monthly Weather Review during 15.5 months in 2007–2008 were examined. Two and three reviewers were used for 306 and 155 manuscripts, respectively (92.2% of all manuscripts). Rejection rates for initial decisions and final decisions were not significantly different whether two or three reviewers were used. Manuscripts with more reviewers did not spend more rounds in review or have different rejection rates at each round. The results varied by editor, however, with some editors rejecting more two-reviewer manuscripts and others rejecting more three-reviewer manuscripts. Editors described using their scientific expertise in the decision-making process, either in determining the number of reviews to be sought or in making decisions once the reviews were received, approaches that differ from that of relying purely upon reviewer agreement as reported previously in the literature. A simple model is constructed for three decision-making strategies for editors: rejection when all reviewers recommend rejection, rejection when any reviewer recommends rejection, and rejection when a majority of reviewers recommend rejection. By plotting the probability of reviewer rejection against the probability of editor rejection, the decision-making process can be graphically illustrated, demonstrating that, for this dataset, editors are likely to reject a manuscript when any reviewer recommends rejection.

Suggested Citation

  • David M. Schultz, 2010. "Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 277-292, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:84:y:2010:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-009-0084-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0084-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-009-0084-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-009-0084-0?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frey, Bruno S, 2003. "Publishing as Prostitution?--Choosing between One's Own Ideas and Academic Success," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 116(1-2), pages 205-223, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mario Paolucci & Francisco Grimaldo, 2014. "Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 663-688, June.
    2. Keith D. Brouthers & Ram Mudambi & David M. Reeb, 2012. "The blockbuster hypothesis: influencing the boundaries of knowledge," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 959-982, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Müller, Harry, 2012. "Die Zitationshäufigkeit als Qualitätsindikator im Rahmen der Forschungsleistungsmessung," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 1/2012, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    2. Engelbert Stockhammer & Paul Ramskogler, 2009. "Post-Keynesian economics How to move forward," European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 6(2), pages 227-246.
    3. Oswald, Andrew J., 2015. "The Objective Measurement of World-Leading Research," IZA Discussion Papers 8829, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Necker, Sarah, 2014. "Scientific misbehavior in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1747-1759.
    5. Justus Haucap & Nima Moshgbar & W. Benedikt Schmal, 2021. "The impact of the German 'DEAL' on competition in the academic publishing market," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2027-2049, December.
    6. Müller, Harry, 2013. "Zur Ethik von Rankings im Hochschulwesen: Eine Betrachtung aus ökonomischer Perspektive," CIW Discussion Papers 1/2013, University of Münster, Center for Interdisciplinary Economics (CIW).
    7. Libman, A., 2011. "German Economics: Mechanisms of Transformation," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, issue 9, pages 129-149.
    8. 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).
    9. Hatzinikolaou, Dimitris, 2012. "Failure in the market for reviewing economics papers: Good readers, bad referees, and ugly papers," MPRA Paper 45384, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 26 Sep 2012.
    10. Stephan B. Bruns, 2013. "Identifying Genuine Effects in Observational Research by Means of Meta-Regressions," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-040, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    11. J. W. Fedderke, 2013. "The objectivity of national research foundation peer review in South Africa assessed against bibliometric indexes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 177-206, November.
    12. Dilger, Alexander, 2017. "Zur Stärkung wissenschaftlicher Kritik [On strengthening of academic critique]," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 8/2017, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    13. Rubin, Amir & Rubin, Eran & Segal, Dan, 2023. "Editor home bias?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    14. João Ricardo Faria & Damien Besancenot & Andreas J. Novak, 2011. "Paradigm Depletion, Knowledge Production And Research Effort: Considering Thomas Kuhn'S Ideas," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 587-604, November.
    15. Oswald, Andrew J., 2009. "World-Leading Research and its Measurement," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 887, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    16. Manuel Portugal Ferreira & José Eduardo Storopoli & Fernando Ribeiro Serra, 2014. "Two Decades of Research on Strategic Alliances: Analysis of Citations, Co-citations and Themes Researched," RAC - Revista de Administração Contemporânea (Journal of Contemporary Administration), ANPAD - Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, vol. 18(spe), pages 109-133.
    17. Jakub Rybacki, 2020. "Are Central Banks’ Research Teams Fragile Because of Groupthink in the Area of Monetary Policy? – Evidence on Inflation Targeting," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 4, pages 81-103.
    18. Wolfram Elsner & Frederic S. Lee, 2010. "Editors' Introduction," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(5), pages 1333-1344, November.
    19. Buehling, Kilian, 2021. "Changing research topic trends as an effect of publication rankings – The case of German economists and the Handelsblatt Ranking," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    20. Berlemann, Michael & Haucap, Justus, 2015. "Which factors drive the decision to opt out of individual research rankings? An empirical study of academic resistance to change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1108-1115.

    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:spr:scient:v:84:y:2010:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-009-0084-0. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.