IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/revage/v14y1992i2p241-254..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expectations and Perceptions of the Peer Review Process: A Study of Four Agricultural Economics Journals

Author

Listed:
  • Larry W. Van Tassell
  • Dan L. McLemore
  • Ronald K. Roberts

Abstract

Understanding what agricultural economists look for when reviewing a manuscript is critical for publishing in refereed journals. Results are presented from a survey of authors and reviewers of four agricultural economics journals. Persistence was highlighted as a key factor in publication as was having a manuscript that was scientifically sound and well composed. Methodological sophistication rated low as a criterion used in the evaluation of manuscripts they reviewed, and while their comments were usually given as suggestions, the reviewers did expect authors to adequately respond to all suggestions.

Suggested Citation

  • Larry W. Van Tassell & Dan L. McLemore & Ronald K. Roberts, 1992. "Expectations and Perceptions of the Peer Review Process: A Study of Four Agricultural Economics Journals," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 14(2), pages 241-254.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:revage:v:14:y:1992:i:2:p:241-254.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1349503
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Robison, Lindon J. & Colyer, Dale, 1994. "Reflections On Relevance Of Professional Journals," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-16, July.

    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:oup:revage:v:14:y:1992:i:2:p:241-254.. 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: Oxford University Press or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.