IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author’s Formula

  • JS Armstrong

    (The Wharton School)

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.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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:
Download Restriction: no

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

in new window

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:

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.:

as in new window
  1. J. Scott Armstrong, 1979. "Advocacy and Objectivity in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 423-428, May.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502057. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.