Getting in: Criteria for acceptance of manuscripts in Psychological Bulletin, 1993–1996.

Abstract

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

A content analysis of referees’ comments: how do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ?

“…Lack of originality [in this study an aspect considered in the area ''Relevance of contribution''] or inappropriate experimental design were likely to be associated with rejection. Conversely, aspects involving the presentation of manuscripts (tables, figures, references) were rarely cited as reasons to justify acceptance or rejection'' (p. 549, see also Abelson 1990;Sternberg et al 1997 The results of this study have various implications for authors, journal editors and referees (in the field of chemistry): The question for authors, following the rejection of their manuscript by a journal, is generally to which other journal the manuscript should be resubmitted. In the context of the results of this study, an author should then choose a journal for the resubmission with a similarly high reputation as that of the rejecting journal, if the criticism in the reviews does not relate to the relevance of the contribution, and the design/conception of the study is not fundamentally criticized, but rather if the criticism primarily relates to other areas.…”

The Review Process at PSPB: Correlates of Interreviewer Agreement and Manuscript Acceptance

“…Studies examining the relation of reviewer ratings of manuscript attributes to editors decisions have generally found that reviewers recommendations for publication are highly correlated with editors decisions (e.g., Bakanic, McPhail, & Simon, 1987;Fogg & Fiske, 1993;Lock, 1982;Sternberg, Hojjat, Brigockas, & Grigorenko, 1997;Zuckerman & Merton, 1971) and that reviewers ratings of manuscript attributes predict their own and editors publication judgments (Marsh & Ball, 1989;Sternberg et al, 1997). There is some question, however, about which manuscript attributes are most strongly associated with publication judgments.…”

“…In an experimental study, Wilson, DePaulo, Mook, and Klaaren (1993) found that fictitious studies that were about important topics were judged more likely to be published than identical studies which were about unimportant topics, even when the studies were fatally flawed methodologically. Studies within the review process itself have suggested that ratings of both importance and methodology are the most highly related to publication judgments, and in that order (Marsh & Ball, 1989;Sternberg et al, 1997).…”

“…These attributes were designed to be distinct from one another yet exhaustive of those that might be considered most relevant to judging an empirical personality and social psychology manuscript. Also, there is precedent within the peer-review literature for each (e.g., Chase, 1970;Marsh & Ball, 1989;Sternberg et al, 1997). Four 3-point scales were provided for these ratings, in which 1 = inadequate, 2 = marginal, and 3 = good for all four scales.…”

“…Further investigation of the role of ratings of manuscript attributes would also be useful. Investigations examining if other distinct dimensions underlying publication judgments exist (e.g., appropriateness for the journal; see Sternberg et al, 1997) would enhance our understanding of the dimensionality and correlates of publication judgments. It would also be interesting to examine the impact of editors judgments of manuscript quality on editors decisions (above and beyond that of the ratings of reviewers) and to determine whether editors and reviewers use the same or different dimensions in reaching their publication judgments.…”