Note from the Editors: Politics and Policy 2006 Submissions, Reviews, and Acceptance Rate (original) (raw)
Related papers
Editorial: Reflections on the review process
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2018
After three years as Editor of IJRM (not to mention three years as Editor of the Journal of Marketing and seven years as Editor of the Journal of Service Research) I think it is the appropriate time for me to reflect on the nature of the review process in marketing journals, and how I believe it should change. I would like to highlight several key observations, and also give some recommendations to Editors and future Editors of the leading marketing journals. I have tried to implement these recommendations myself, at all of the journals I have edited. Others can determine the extent to which I have been successful. First, I want to recognize the invaluable and selfless work that the entire editorial team-Senior Editors, Editorial Review Board, ad hoc reviewers and (last, but certainly not least) Managing Editor Cecilia Nalagon-has done at IJRM to ensure a first-rate review process and ensure the importance and influence of the journal. I know from many communications with authors-even a number of whom had their paper rejected-that they are very thankful for the high degree of professionalism and helpfulness that these people have shown. The remainder of this editorial lists several key observations that I have made about the nature of the review process in leading marketing journals. I then conclude with a set of recommendations. Observation #1: there are too many review rounds I was having dinner last week with a professor from one of the world's leading universities who was discussing a paper he has had under review for five years at one of the field's leading journals. The paper recently received yet another risky revision decision in the fourth round. Such delay, although no doubt well-intentioned on the part of the editor, harms the field, because it slows down the diffusion of knowledge. I would be willing to bet that 90+% of the paper's current (and eventual) value was present in the initial submission. To combat this problem, some journals have attempted to institute a 2-round policy. The idea is that the paper should achieve at least conditional acceptance in the second round. Such a policy may have unintended consequences. Given that the top journals all have very high standards for rigor, the only papers that will make it through in two rounds are papers that are already highlypolished in the initial submission, and only "safe" papers that are exploring standard topics in standard ways will have a chance. Observation #2: perfection is valued more than timeliness The example I gave previously shows the downside of this value system. If it takes 4-5 years to get a paper through the review process, there is no way that the marketing literature can respond in a timely way to fast-moving topics. The Computer Science field combats this by counting proceedings papers more than journal articles, and making fast decisions on those proceedings papers. By marketing's standards, the CS review process seems "fast and loose." But at least it is fast, and timely work can surface quickly. By contrast, the marketing literature always seems several years behind. Observation #3: rigor is valued more than importance Every few years there is an editorial written by greybeards in the field that examines the state of the field. That editorial inevitably concludes that rigor is overemphasized at the expense of importance. What's more, this problem is currently getting worse. As most major journals go to co-editor systems, more and more of the field's most important editorial roles are going to younger and less experienced people. Such people, insecure with their own position and status, want to avoid at all costs any suggestion that they are anything but as rigorous as possible. Unfortunately, younger and less experienced people also tend to have less perspective, and less ability to discern historical trends and the importance of topics. The result is an inexorable shift toward rigor, and a devaluing International Journal of Research in Marketing xxx (xxxx) xxx-xxx IJRM-01269; No of Pages 3
Pan African Medical Journal, 2020
Introduction: health professionals are involved in research as researchers themselves and as supervisors to undergraduate and postgraduate students. Authors may have unrealistic expectations regarding journal submission and review processes. The study aimed to describe journal response types and times for manuscripts finalised for submission by the University of the Free State School of Medicine medical editor. Methods: this descriptive cohort study with an analytical component included all manuscripts finalised for submission to accredited journals by the medical editor, 2014-2017. Excel spreadsheets capturing all stages of the manuscript process were used to confidentially note information regarding submission and subsequent journal responses. Results: ninety-five manuscripts were submitted to 72 peer-reviewed accredited journals. The total number of submissions was 163. Only 46 (48.4%) manuscripts were accepted by the first journals submitted to. Rejected submissions (n=82) had a median journal response time of 15.5 days (range 0-381 days), with a third being sent for review. Nine manuscripts were accepted with no revisions needed. Accepted submissions (n=72) had a median of one round of revision (range 0-4 rounds), and a median time of 119.5 days (range 0-674 days) from submission to final acceptance. Conclusion: within our setting, half of first submissions were unsuccessful, but rejection usually occurred rapidly. Acceptance for publication occurred at a median time of 4 months after one round of revision. If health professionals were made aware of expected outcomes and response times, it may prevent authors from falling victim to the publication practices of predatory journals.
Peer review time: how late is late in a small medical journal?
Archives of Medical Research, 2003
Background. Timeliness is an important attribute of peer review because it brings information promptly to its users. This has become even more important with the development of on-line submission and on-line peer review. Small journals usually must rely on regular mail and traditional peer review. We evaluated the review time in a small medical journal outside of mainstream science. Methods. We analyzed 1,346 editorial requests for manuscript peer review sent from the Croatian Medical Journal to 690 reviewers from February 1998 to December 2001. Results. Peer reviewer response rate was 78.6% (1,057 of 1,346 requests for review) and median review time was 29 days (95% confidence interval [95% CI] ϭ 28-31 days). Of returned reviews, 554 (52.4%) arrived on time (before the deadline established by the editor) and the others arrived late. Median delay was 12 days (95% CI ϭ 10-15 days). There was no difference in delay for Croatian-and non-Croatian-authored manuscripts, but more reviews of articles on clinical medicine were delayed than those on public health. More reviews from non-Croatian or male reviewers were never returned to the editors. For reviews that arrived late, those from male reviewers were more delayed than those from female reviewers (median, 13 days, 95% CI ϭ 11-15 days vs. median, 8 days, 95% CI ϭ 5-12 days, respectively). Logistic regression analysis revealed that odds for reviewer's positive response to an editorial request for manuscript review were greater for female Croatian reviewers, who received up to three review requests. Conclusions. Peer review time in a small general medical journal may be comparable to review times in larger and more prestigious journals. Choice of reviewers may improve the expediency of peer review: editors from small journals may profit from building and educating local peer reviewers, bearing in mind that female reviewers may provide more expedient reviews. Ć
Sedimentology, 1999
This editorial team served between the Recife Congress (end August 1994) to the Alicante Congress (mid April 1998), a few months short of the usual 4-year term. As reported by the previous editors (Talbot et al., 1995), submission of manuscripts to the journal seems to be quite stable with a mean of 144 papers submitted each year (Table 1; please note that all tables and ®gures describe data for 1994±1997 and so include a little overlap with the previous editorial team). The mean value masks one anomalous year, 1995, when 176 papers were submitted (Table 1), perhaps as a positive response to the change to the larger A4 format. Because we typically have space to publish 62 papers per year (we have not included discussion/replies in this ®gure), it is clear that about 40% of the papers submitted can be published. This a healthy state for the journal, although it does not mean that many authors are disappointed by not having their papers published. The time from initial submission of a paper to publication is very variable, but the majority of papers fall under a skewed distribution with two strong modes (Fig. 1). We commented on this distribution in 1996 (Andrews et al., 1996a) and recap here. Some papers, often the shorter ones that are meticulously prepared, tend to be easier to referee and to edit. A paper in this category is typically being published in 9±15 months. Papers in the time range 16±24 months take longer to review and require more editorial work. It is not unusual for Sedimentology manuscripts to be reviewed and edited twice, even three times if there are serious problems with the science or communication of ideas. Of course there are exceptions and problems can, and do, occur from time to time including slow reviews, postal problems, delays by the authors in making revisions etc. The longer times beyond 24 months (Fig. 1) represent a combination of unfortunate but usually unavoidable circumstances. Once a paper has been accepted for publication it typically takes 8 months to appear in print (Fig. 2), although it can take as little as 5 months. This ®gure is a little longer than that reported by the previous editors (Talbot et al., 1995). As we have not relaxed our acceptance rate relative to previous years, this increase must re¯ect the fact that our contributors are writing longer papers.
REVIEWER AND EDITOR DECISION MAKING IN THE JOURNAL REVIEW PROCESS
Personnel Psychology, 1997
Much research on the journal review process has found little consistency among reviewers' evaluations of manuscripts. We propose theoretical explanations for these differences related to gatekeeping and particularism phenomena and generate hypotheses regarding influences on initial editorial decisions. A sample of 823 original submissions to the Journal ofApplied Psychology were analyzed with respect to author and paper characteristics, reviewer evaluations, and editor decisions. Support was found for gatekeeping functions in that reviewers and editors appeared to pay particular attention to the adequacy of the research design, operationalization of constructs, and theoretical development. Evidence was found for variable gatekeeping in reviewer evaluations, and the impact of reviewer evaluations on editor decisions was moderated by this variability across reviewers. Little evidence was found for social particularism (i.e., favoritism based on gender or affiliation) or content particularism (preference for or against particular research settings or methodologies) .
Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author's Perspective
Publications, 2019
The aim of this study was to investigate the opinion of authors on the overall quality and effectiveness of reviewers' contributions to reviewed papers. We employed an on-line survey of thirteen journals which publish articles in the field of life, social or technological sciences. Responses received from 193 authors were analysed using a mixed-effects model in order to determine factors deemed the most important in the authors' evaluation of the reviewers. Qualitative content analysis of the responses to open questions was performed as well. The mixed-effects model revealed that the authors' assessment of the competence of referees strongly depended on the final editorial decision and that the speed of the review process was influential as well. In Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) analysis on seven questions detailing authors' opinions, perception of review speed remained a significant predictor of the assessment. In addition, both the perceived competence and helpfulness of the reviewers significantly and positively affected the authors' evaluation. New models were used to recheck the value of these two factors and it was confirmed that the assessment of the competence of reviewers strongly depended on the final editorial decision.
Journal peer review lies at the heart of academic quality control. Using data from the journal peer review process of a single journal in the Social Sciences field (Business, Management and Accounting), we examine the effects of peer review on papers submitted to that journal. In particular we examine the effect of initial editorial decisions upon the resubmission of papers, and how the length of time papers spend in review (turnaround time) and the number of re-submissions of a paper affect subsequent citation of the published papers. Our enquiry casts light on the question of whether papers that are more highly cited are easier to identify at the review stage and therefore have a shorter turnaround time and fewer resubmissions. Our study is very much a novel approach in bibliometrics as the data is from a single journal and the sample size is small. However, the authors believe the paper makes constructive suggestions of how to exploit a hitherto obscure but 2 potentially rich data source of bibliometric information to cast further light on the process of peer review in academic journal publication.