Statistics, updates, and changes at AJP (original) (raw)
Related papers
2019 BEAM, "Journal Rejection Rates", Greene & Medina
Journals nowadays typically have an acceptance ratio for submitted technical reports at a rate less than 1 in 5 (20% acceptance for some journals, p=0.20). The purpose of this report is to determine how exactly the likelihood of success subsequently improves, with several sequential submissions, assuming random selection. More commonly for the very busy journals, the rate is less than 1 in 10 (p=0.10 "acceptance probability"). The likelihood of failure q=(1-p) will diminish according to a power law as (1-p) ^ N, where N is the number of sequential submissions. For journals that are not as busy, where the acceptance probability is higher, p=0.20, the statistics show that at least 3 submissions are required to achieve a 50% likelihood of success, and 10 submittals are required to achieve a 90% likelihood of success. In recent years, there seems a preponderance of completely new scientific and medical journal groups, not necessarily "predatory", with 10 or 20 different sub-specialities in each group. Beall (2016) discusses practical implications in terms of the so-called predatory journals.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 2005
Submissions to the journal continued to increase this year and totaled 190. Seven percent more manuscripts were initially rejected this year and a greater percentage of authors were invited to revise and resubmit their manuscripts. Decisions on new manuscripts submitted are presented in , and those for resubmitted manuscripts are in . Thirty-eight manuscripts out of 189 submitted (not including invited articles) were accepted, for an acceptance rate of 20.1%. The percentage of research papers submitted to the journal was approximately the same as last year, although the total number of research submissions was greater in 2005-2006. The descriptors listed in reflect the broad range of material submitted to and published in JMFT.
2008
The Editors, Elias Mallet da Rocha Barros, Ricardo Bernardi, Dana BirkstedBreen, Catalina Bronstein, Antonino Ferro, Jay Greenberg, Juan Francisco Jordan Moore, Sergio LewKowicz and Robert Michels, would like to express their gratitude to the team of readers and reviewers throughout the world responsible for the successful implementation of the IJP peer-review process. These colleagues devote a great deal of time and effort in the service of providing detailed and thoughtful evaluations of manuscripts, film essays and book reviews that will ultimately help the authors improve their contributions. Without their edication, the IJP would not have achieved the scholarly status it enjoys, and we would like to thank them for everything they have done to assist us during the past 12 months. We would also like to thank members of the IJP Board of Guardians and members of the editorial boards of the IJP ‘Annuals’ project who are working towards producing collections of IJP papers in various ...
The JAMA Peer Review Report for 2000
JAMA, 2001
In 2000, it took an average of 44 calendar days from manuscript receipt to rejection; 117 days from receipt to acceptance; and 182 days from receipt to publication. A mean of 24 days was required for peer review; each reviewer handled an average of 2 manuscripts. Fifty-six percent of the 4366 manuscripts we received were sent for external peer review. Forty-two percent of manuscripts were rejected without external review. Two percent of accepted manuscripts (mostly invited editorials) did not have external review. The total acceptance rate for manuscripts in 2000 was 11%, and