Journal Desk-Rejection Practices in Political Science: Bringing Data to Bear on What Journals Do

Garand, James C.; Harman, Moriah

doi:10.1017/s1049096521000573

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This feedback loop, as Eve notes, has served to drive up the subscription prices of the most desirable outlets, while creating a situation where the volume of publications submitted greatly outstrips the capacity of available peer reviewers. In fact, increasing rates of desk rejections are directly related to the undersupply of reviewers in relation to the oversupply of papers (see Garand and Harman 2021 ). In this environment, the gatekeeping function of peer review has been amplified and conflated with its role as a form of quality control.…”

Section: Fake Versus Genuine Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scholarly Publishing, Boundary Processes, and the Problem of Fake Peer Reviews

Bell

Kingori

Mills

2022

Science, Technology, & Human Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decade, the phenomenon of “fake” peer reviews has caused growing consternation among scholarly publishers. Yet despite the significant behind-the-scenes impact that anxieties about fakery have had on peer review processes within scholarly journals, the phenomenon itself has been subject to little scholarly analysis. Rather than treating fake reviews as a straightforward descriptive category, in this article, we explore how the discourse on fake reviews emerged and why, and what it tells us about its seeming antithesis, “genuine” peer review. Our primary source of data are two influential adjudicators of scholarly publishing integrity that have been critical to the emergence of the concept of the fake review: Retraction Watch and the Committee on Publication Ethics. Via an analysis of their respective blog posts, Forum cases, presentations, and best practice guidance, we build a genealogy of the fake review discourse and highlight the variety of players involved in staking out the fake. We conclude that constant work is required to maintain clear lines of separation between genuine and fake reviews and highlight how the concept has served to reassert the boundaries between science and society in a context where they have increasingly been questioned.

show abstract

Section: Fake Versus Genuine Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scholarly Publishing, Boundary Processes, and the Problem of Fake Peer Reviews

Bell

Kingori

Mills

2022

Science, Technology, & Human Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most studies focused on this have suggested that women submit fewer papers than men, with little difference in desk rejections (or a disparity in favor of women) (Bendels et al, 2018;Garand & Harman, 2021;Grossman, 2020;Martinsen et al, 2022;Squazzoni et al, 2021). The lower submission rate is particularly pronounced in the most prestigious journals (Bendels et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in submission behavior exacerbate publication disparities in elite journals

Basson,

Ni,

Badia

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Women are particularly underrepresented in journals of the highest scientific impact, with substantial consequences for their careers. While a large body of research has focused on the outcome and the process of peer review, fewer articles have explicitly focused on gendered submission behavior and the explanations for these differences. In our study of nearly five thousand active authors, we find that women are less likely to report having submitted papers and, when they have, to submit fewer manuscripts, on average, than men. Women were more likely to indicate that they did not submit their papers (in general and their subsequently most cited papers) toScience, Nature, orPNASbecause they were advised not to. In the aggregate, no statistically significant difference was observed between men and women in how they rated the quality of their work. Nevertheless, regardless of discipline, women were more likely than men to indicate that their “work was not ground-breaking or sufficiently novel”as a rationale for not submitting to one of the listed prestigious journals. Men were more likely than women to indicate that the “work would fit better in a more specialized journal.” We discuss the implications of these findings and interventions that can serve to mitigate the disparities caused by gendered differences in submission behavior.SignificancePublishing in high-impact scholarly journals has a significant effect on researchers’ careers. Our findings identify factors that affect submission toScience, Nature, and theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America(PNAS) and explore whether there is a relationship between gender and desk rejections or submission rates. We found no relationship between gender and reported desk rejection and a relationship between gender and reported submissions. Women were more likely than men to indicate that their “work was not ground-breaking or sufficiently novel” for the listed prestigious journals and that they were advised against submitting to these venues. Men were more likely to indicate that the “work would fit better in a more specialized journal.”

show abstract

Gender differences in submission behavior exacerbate publication disparities in elite journals

Basson,

Ni,

Badia

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Women are particularly underrepresented in journals of the highest scientific impact, with substantial consequences for their careers. While a large body of research has focused on the outcome and the process of peer review, fewer articles have explicitly focused on gendered submission behavior and the explanations for these differences. In our study of nearly five thousand active authors, we find that women are less likely to report having submitted papers and, when they have, to submit fewer manuscripts, on average, than men. Women were more likely to indicate that they did not submit their papers (in general and their subsequently most cited papers) to Science, Nature, or PNAS because they were advised not to. In the aggregate, no statistically significant difference was observed between men and women in how they rated the quality of their work. Nevertheless, regardless of discipline, women were more likely than men to indicate that their “work was not ground-breaking or sufficiently novel” as a rationale for not submitting to one of the listed prestigious journals. Men were more likely than women to indicate that the “work would fit better in a more specialized journal.” We discuss the implications of these findings and interventions that can serve to mitigate the disparities caused by gendered differences in submission behavior. Publishing in high-impact scholarly journals has a significant effect on researchers’ careers. Our findings identify factors that affect submission to Science, Nature, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) and explore whether there is a relationship between gender and desk rejections or submission rates. We found no relationship between gender and reported desk rejection and a relationship between gender and reported submissions. Women were more likely than men to indicate that their “work was not ground-breaking or sufficiently novel” for the listed prestigious journals and that they were advised against submitting to these venues. Men were more likely to indicate that the “work would fit better in a more specialized journal.”

show abstract

Journal Desk-Rejection Practices in Political Science: Bringing Data to Bear on What Journals Do

Cited by 4 publications

References 1 publication

Scholarly Publishing, Boundary Processes, and the Problem of Fake Peer Reviews

Scholarly Publishing, Boundary Processes, and the Problem of Fake Peer Reviews

Gender differences in submission behavior exacerbate publication disparities in elite journals

Gender differences in submission behavior exacerbate publication disparities in elite journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About