Sequential order as an extraneous factor in editorial decision

Abstract

Academic journal editors reject a significant portion of first submissions without sending them out for peer review. This decision, desk rejection, is made to reduce the workload on associate editors and referees, to give the submitting author a head start on revision or pursuit of an alternative venue, as well as to achieve quicker turnaround time for the journal. Desk rejection is a judgement based on the manuscript's perceived quality, impact and fit with the journal's scope. Could extraneous factors, which are unrelated to the content of a manuscript, affect the editorial decision? This paper examines whether the sequential order in which manuscripts are submitted to a large academic journal affects the editorial decision. Becoming the first submission on the editor's list of manuscripts to review increases the probability of a desk rejection by up to 7% without any effect on the likelihood of a rejection after peer review.

Motivational drivers for serial position effects: Evidence from high-stakes legal decisions.

“…Serial position effects, a systematic impact of the serial position of a case in sequence on a decision, have been documented in many contexts (Augenblick & Nicholson, 2016; Bian et al, 2022; Colton & Peterson, 1967; Danziger et al, 2011; Hirshleifer et al, 2019; Ibanez & Toffel, 2020; Linder et al, 2014; McLaughlin et al, 2009; Memmert et al, 2008; Orazbayev, 2017; Philpot et al, 2018; Unkelbach et al, 2012). To explain them, previous research focused on the role of decision-makers’ fatigue.…”

“…Past research documenting serial position effects mostly focuses on the role of decision-makers’ fatigue in higher serial positions. For example, it has been argued that accumulating fatigue over a sequence of independent cases leads parole judges to be increasingly more harsh as they make more decisions concerning inmates (Danziger et al, 2011), food health inspectors to be increasingly less stringent as they visit more food establishments (Ibanez & Toffel, 2020), and journal editors to be increasingly more positive as they decide concerning more initial submissions (Orazbayev, 2017). 1…”

Factors affecting expert performance in bid evaluation: An integrated approach

“…The nature and type of cognition are influenced by the interaction between the body and the external environment. For example, situation perception, relating to concepts such as fatigue ( Orazbayev, 2017 ), is a hidden expert-performance-influencing factor that few researchers focus on. The perception of “affordance” has a dynamic quality and can change ( Fajen et al, 2009 ).…”

The production economics of economics production

“…This paper also sheds light on the operation of the economics profession. Economists have studied the whole production line in their own profession, from authorship (Hamermesh, 2013) and coauthorship (Laband & Tollison, 2000; Ray & Robson, 2018; Rosenblat & Mobius, 2004; Weber, 2018), to page limits on initial submissions (Card & DellaVigna, 2014), editing and refereeing (Brogaard, Engelberg, & Parsons, 2014; Cherkashin, Demidova, Imai, & Krishna, 2009; Orazbayev, 2017; Welch, 2014), journal response time (Azar, 2007; Ellison, 2002a, 2002b; Leslie, 2005), and citations (Einav & Yariv, 2006; Feenberg, Ganguli, Gaule, & Gruber, 2017; Huang, 2014; van Praag & van Praag, 2008). We consider such a thorough self‐study of the profession not as a sign of the profession's narcissism, but as a deep inquiry into whether this profession, born for understanding and improving the efficiency of resource allocation, operates itself efficiently 5.…”