IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0322012.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reputation shortcoming in academic publishing

Author

Listed:
  • Rémi Neveu
  • André Neveu

Abstract

Editors of scientific journals make central decisions in the publication process. Information peripheral to the content of a manuscript such as the editor’s professional circle and authors’ publishing record may influence these decisions. This constitutes reputation whose role in the publication process remains poorly investigated. Analyzing three decades of publications of 33 Nature journals in physical and life sciences, we show that reputation is tied with publications at the level of editors. The establishment of a non-financial conflict of interest policy and the journals’ impact factor were associated with changes in the number of publications of editors’ former co-authors and authors with a publishing record in Nature journals. We suggest changes at the author and journal levels to mitigate the role of reputation in the publication process.

Suggested Citation

  • Rémi Neveu & André Neveu, 2025. "Reputation shortcoming in academic publishing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(4), pages 1-18, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0322012
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0322012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0322012
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0322012&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0322012?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lutz Bornmann & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2009. "Reviewer and editor biases in journal peer review: an investigation of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie International Edition," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 262-272, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Quan-Hoang Vuong & Huyen Thanh T. Nguyen & Thanh-Hang Pham & Manh-Toan Ho & Minh-Hoang Nguyen, 2021. "Assessing the ideological homogeneity in entrepreneurial finance research by highly cited publications," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Zhentao Liang & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2023. "Bias against scientific novelty: A prepublication perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 99-114, January.
    3. repec:plo:pone00:0013345 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Zhang, Baolong & Wang, Hao & Deng, Sanhong & Su, Xinning, 2020. "Measurement and analysis of Chinese journal discriminative capacity," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1).
    5. repec:plo:pone00:0061401 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Bornmann, Lutz & Tekles, Alexander, 2021. "Convergent validity of several indicators measuring disruptiveness with milestone assignments to physics papers by experts," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    7. Christian Leibel & Lutz Bornmann, 2024. "What do we know about the disruption index in scientometrics? An overview of the literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 601-639, January.
    8. 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.
    9. Shiji Chen & Yanan Guo & Alvin Shijie Ding & Yanhui Song, 2024. "Is interdisciplinarity more likely to produce novel or disruptive research?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(5), pages 2615-2632, May.
    10. Andreas Nishikawa-Pacher & Tamara Heck & Kerstin Schoch, 2023. "Open Editors: A dataset of scholarly journals’ editorial board positions," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 228-243.

    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:plo:pone00:0322012. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.