IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v104y2015i1d10.1007_s11192-015-1566-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The author–editor game

Author

Listed:
  • J. A. García

    (Universidad de Granada)

  • Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez

    (Universidad de Granada)

  • J. Fdez-Valdivia

    (Universidad de Granada)

Abstract

This paper provides a formal study on manuscript quality control in peer review. Within this analysis, a biased editor is defined operationally as an editor that exerts a higher (lower) level of quality control. Here we show that if the editor is more biased than the manuscript’s author then the author undertakes the type of revision that the editor prefers instead of following his or her own opinion. Moreover, authors with a strong belief about the required level of quality control will be very motivated under editors who agree with them. By contrast, when authors do not undertake the revision type that the editor prefers, they will be very demotivated under editors that exert a different level of quality control and more so as the associate editor is more biased. The effects of editors’ bias on authors’ satisfaction and motivation cause sorting in the authors who submit manuscripts to scholarly journals, and therefore, match authors and journals with similar quality standards. It will decrease the demotivating effect that editors’ bias had on some authors, so that bias becomes more effective at the peer review stage. Moreover, some journals will be forced to lower the quality standards in order to be able to compete with journals of more biased editors. This paper also shows that, under fairly weak conditions, it is optimal for the Editor-in-Chief to assign manuscripts to an editor that exerts a quality control higher than the journal’s standard, against the competing journal whose editor holds the journal’s standard.

Suggested Citation

  • J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2015. "The author–editor game," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 361-380, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:104:y:2015:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1566-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1566-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-015-1566-x
    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/s11192-015-1566-x?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. Jose A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & Joaquín Fdez-Valdivia, 2015. "Bias and effort in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(10), pages 2020-2030, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Eric Van den Steen, 2005. "Organizational Beliefs and Managerial Vision," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 256-283, April.
    4. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    5. Lutz Bornmann, 2012. "The Hawthorne effect in journal peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 857-862, June.
    6. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Lutz Bornmann, 2014. "Gould , T.H.P. ( 2013 ). Do we still need peer review? An argument for change . Scarecrow Press : Plymouth, UK," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(1), pages 209-213, January.
    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. Khaled Moustafa, 2015. "Don’t infer anything from unavailable data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2271-2272, December.
    2. Bravo, Giangiacomo & Farjam, Mike & Grimaldo Moreno, Francisco & Birukou, Aliaksandr & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2018. "Hidden connections: Network effects on editorial decisions in four computer science journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 101-112.
    3. Bayindir, Esra Eren & Gurdal, Mehmet Yigit & Saglam, Ismail, 2019. "A Game Theoretic Approach to Peer Review of Grant Proposals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    4. Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa & García, J.A. & Fdez-Valdivia, J., 2016. "Evolutionary games between authors and their editors," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 273(C), pages 645-655.
    5. Emre Sarigöl & David Garcia & Ingo Scholtes & Frank Schweitzer, 2017. "Quantifying the effect of editor–author relations on manuscript handling times," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 609-631, October.

    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. J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2016. "Why the referees’ reports I receive as an editor are so much better than the reports I receive as an author?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 967-986, March.
    2. Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. A. García & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2018. "Editorial decisions with informed and uninformed reviewers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 25-43, October.
    3. Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa & García, J.A. & Fdez-Valdivia, J., 2016. "Evolutionary games between authors and their editors," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 273(C), pages 645-655.
    4. Bayar, Onur & Chemmanur, Thomas J., 2021. "A model of the editorial process in academic journals," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    5. Jürgen Janger & Nicole Schmidt & Anna Strauss, 2019. "International Differences in Basic Research Grant Funding. A Systematic Comparison," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61664, April.
    6. Damien Besancenot & Kim Huynh & Radu Vranceanu, 2011. "A Matching Model of the Academic Publication Market," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 167(4), pages 708-725, December.
    7. Rodríguez Sánchez, Isabel & Makkonen, Teemu & Williams, Allan M., 2019. "Peer review assessment of originality in tourism journals: critical perspective of key gatekeepers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-11.
    8. Faria João R & Mixon Franklin G & Upadhyaya Kamal P, 2018. "Editor Reputation and Journal Quality: The Case of Regional Economic Association Journals," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 18(1), pages 1-20, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Elena Veretennik & Maria Yudkevich, 2023. "Inconsistent quality signals: evidence from the regional journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3675-3701, June.
    11. Meyer, Matthias & Waldkirch, Rüdiger W. & Duscher, Irina & Just, Alexander, 2018. "Drivers of citations: An analysis of publications in “top” accounting journals," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 24-46.
    12. Seeber, Marco & Alon, Ilan & Pina, David G. & Piro, Fredrik Niclas & Seeber, Michele, 2022. "Predictors of applying for and winning an ERC Proof-of-Concept grant: An automated machine learning model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    13. Feliciani, Thomas & Morreau, Michael & Luo, Junwen & Lucas, Pablo & Shankar, Kalpana, 2022. "Designing grant-review panels for better funding decisions: Lessons from an empirically calibrated simulation model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    14. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna, 2017. "What do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Leading Economics Journals," NBER Working Papers 23282, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Dietmar Wolfram & Peiling Wang & Adam Hembree & Hyoungjoo Park, 2020. "Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1033-1051, November.
    16. Andrada Elena Urda-Cîmpean & Sorana D. Bolboacă & Andrei Achimaş-Cadariu & Tudor Cătălin Drugan, 2016. "Knowledge Production in Two Types of Medical PhD Routes—What’s to Gain?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-16, June.
    17. Randa Alsabahi, 2022. "English Medium Publications: Opening or Closing Doors to Authors with Non-English Language Backgrounds," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, October.
    18. Yuetong Chen & Hao Wang & Baolong Zhang & Wei Zhang, 2022. "A method of measuring the article discriminative capacity and its distribution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3317-3341, June.
    19. Qianjin Zong & Yafen Xie & Jiechun Liang, 2020. "Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 607-623, October.
    20. Thomas Feliciani & Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Pablo Lucas & Flaminio Squazzoni & Ana Marušić & Kalpana Shankar, 2019. "A scoping review of simulation models of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 555-594, October.

    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:104:y:2015:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1566-x. 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.