This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author’s Formula

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
JS Armstrong (The Wharton School)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Recently I completed a review of the empirical research on scientific journals (Armstrong 1982). This review provided evidence for an “author’s formula,” a set of rules that authors can use to increase the likelihood and speed of acceptance of their manuscripts. Authors should: (1) not pick an important problem, (2) not challenge existing beliefs, (3) not obtain surprising results, (4) not use simple methods, (5) not provide full disclosure, and (6) not write clearly. Peters & Ceci (P&C) are obviously ignorant of the author’s formula. In their extension of the Kosinski study (Ross 1979; 1980), they broke most of the rules. Why, then, is P&C’s paper being published? In my search for an explanation, I learned the following from Peters: (a) After a long delay, the paper was rejected by Science, with advice that it would be appropriate for the American Psychologist. (b) After a long delay, the paper was rejected by the American Psychologist. This history illustrates the predictive power of the author’s formula. Submission was meanwhile encouraged by the editor of the Behavioral and Brain Sciences – a journal specializing in peer interaction on controversial papers – and, after a final round of major revision, the paper was accepted for publication. In this commentary, I describe how P&C violated many rules in the author’s formula. It may be too late to salvage their careers, but the discussion should be instructive to other authors.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.

File URL: http://129.3.20.41/eps/get/papers/0502/0502057.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by EconWPA in its series General Economics and Teaching with number 0502057.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 9 pages
Date of creation: 11 Feb 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502057

Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 9
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://129.3.20.41

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (EconWPA).

Related research
Keywords: barriers; scientific contriution; publication;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
A - General Economics and Teaching

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Advocacy and Objectivity in Science," General Economics and Teaching 0502060, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)

  1. JS Armstrong & Raymond Hubbard, 2005. "Does the Need for Agreement Among Reviewers Inhibit the Publication of Controversial Findings?," General Economics and Teaching 0502052, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
  2. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Is Review By Peers As Fair As It Appears?," General Economics and Teaching 0502058, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
  3. JS Armstrong, 2005. "The Importance of Objectivity and Falsification in Management Science," General Economics and Teaching 0502055, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
  4. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors," General Economics and Teaching 0502059, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? All bibliographic data on IDEAS has been put in the public domain by the publishers.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-9.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.