They analyzed ratings provided by reviewers to determine what predictive value, if any, the ratings had for ultimate acceptance or rejection. The authors analyzed the weights of the various criteria through correlation and stepwise multiple-regression analysis. All ratings predicted final decisions, and these ratings were highly intercorrelated. The two strongest predictors were contribution to field reviewed and appropriateness of manuscript for journal. A common factor analysis suggested two factors underlying the ratings: overall appropriateness of a manuscript for the audience of any scientific journal and overall appropriateness of a manuscript for the audience of a particular journal.With the rejection rate for manuscripts submitted to Psychological Bulletin ranging from 80-89% depending on the year, to get published in Psychological Bulletin is a challenge. What do those 11-20% of submitted manuscripts have going for them that puts them on the track to publication? More specifically, what are the variables that lead some manuscripts to be accepted and others to be rejected by this journal of literature reviews?To find out, we decided to look at reviewer feedback and its correlation with final acceptance. Journal editors use assorted criteria in trying to predict which of those manuscripts submitted to a journal ultimately will be of greatest interest to its readers or, even better, will have maximal impact on the field (see Sternberg & Gordeeva, 1996), with the evaluation process usually involving a combination of numerical-based ratings and freestanding prose comments from reviewers. The review process for the journal is no exception. For this article, analysis was limited to the quantified variables-the numerical-based ratings-leading to editorial decisions on almost all Psychological

No abstract