Who Complains to Journal Editors and What Happens*

Simon, Rita J.; Bakanic, Von; McPhail, Clark

doi:10.1111/j.1475-682x.1986.tb00087.x

Cited by 35 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some research suggests that journal editors usually go along with the journal reviewers' recommendations. For example, when a decision was appealed by authors, the editors of the American Sociological Review agreed with the authors on only 13% of the challenges (Simon, Bakanic, & McPhail, 1986). Three other studies had similar findings (Armstrong 1997).…”

Section: Provide Thorough Responses To Journal Reviewers Including Rsupporting

confidence: 48%

Guidelines for Science: Evidence and Checklists

Armstrong

Green

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Problem: The scientific method is unrivalled as a basis for generating useful knowledge, yet research papers published in management, economics, and other social sciences fields often ignore scientific principles. What, then, can be done to increase the publication of useful scientific papers?Methods: Evidence on researchers' compliance with scientific principles was examined. Guidelines aimed at reducing violations were then derived from established definitions of the scientific method. Findings:Violations of the principles of science are encouraged by: (a) funding for advocacy research; (b) regulations that limit what research is permitted, how it must be designed, and what must be reported; (c) political suppression of scientists' speech; (d) universities' use of invalid criteria to evaluate research-such as grant money and counting of publications without regard to usefulness; (e) journals' use of invalid criteria for deciding which papers to publish-such as the use of statistical significance tests. Solutions:We created a checklist of 24 evidence-based operational guidelines to help researchers comply with scientific principles (valid inputs). Based on the definition of science, we then developed a checklist of seven criteria to evaluate whether a research paper provides useful scientific findings (valuable outputs). That checklist can be used by researchers, funders, courts, legislators, regulators, employers, reviewers, and journals.Originality: This paper provides the first comprehensive evidence-based checklists of operational guidelines for conducting scientific research and for evaluating the scientific quality and usefulness of research efforts.Usefulness: Journals could increase the publication of useful papers by including a section committed to publishing all relevant and useful papers that comply with science. By using the Criteria for Useful Science checklist, those who support science could more effectively evaluate the contributions of scientists. AbstractProblem: The scientific method is unrivalled as a basis for generating useful knowledge, yet research papers published in management, economics, and other social sciences fields often ignore scientific principles. What, then, can be done to increase the publication of useful scientific papers?Methods: Evidence on researchers' compliance with scientific principles was examined. Guidelines aimed at reducing violations were then derived from established definitions of the scientific method.Findings: Violations of the principles of science are encouraged by: (a) funding for advocacy research; (b) regulations that limit what research is permitted, how it must be designed, and what must be reported; (c) political suppression of scientists' speech; (d) universities' use of invalid criteria to evaluate research-such as grant money and counting of publications without regard to usefulness; (e) journals' use of invalid criteria for deciding which papers to publish-such as the use of statistical significance tests.Solutions: We created a chec...

show abstract

Section: Provide Thorough Responses To Journal Reviewers Including Rsupporting

confidence: 48%

Guidelines for Science: Evidence and Checklists

Armstrong

Green

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When such abuse or hints of it do occur, it is rarely publicized because of a fear of legal action (Altman, Chalmers, & Herxheimer, 1994;McCarty, 2002). If an ombudsman or other adjudicator intervenes, a significant percentage of appeals lead to the reversal of editorial decisions (Campanario, 1998;Simon, Bakanic, & McPhail, 1986). A survey of academic psychologists revealed that many have reported encountering as authors strictly subjective preferences of the reviewers (76%), false criticisms (73%), inferior expertise (67%), concentration on trivia (60%), treatment by referees as inferior (43%), and careless reading by referees (40%) (Bradley, 1981).…”

Section: Anonymity In Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and supporting anonymity policies in peer review

Nobarany

Booth

2016

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Design of peer‐review support systems is shaped by the policies that define and govern the process of peer review. An important component of these are policies that deal with anonymity: The rules that govern the concealment and transparency of information related to identities of the various stakeholders (authors, reviewers, editors, and others) involved in the peer‐review process. Anonymity policies have been a subject of debate for several decades within scholarly communities. Because of widespread criticism of traditional peer‐review processes, a variety of new peer‐review processes have emerged that manage the trade‐offs between disclosure and concealment of identities in different ways. Based on an analysis of policies and guidelines for authors and reviewers provided by publication venues, we developed a framework for understanding how disclosure and concealment of identities is managed. We discuss the appropriate role of information technology and computer support for the peer‐review process within that framework.

show abstract

“…In the journal review process, for example, reviewer recommendations for a particular manuscript have been found to diverge widely (see Cicchetti, 1991;Starbuck, 2003). Despite obvious pressures to avoid undermining reviewers, editors at the American Sociological Review have been found to disagree with their own reviewers in 13 per cent of the cases where rejected authors appealed the decision (Simon, Bakanic, & McPhail, 1986).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The allocation of prestigious positions in organizational science: accumulative advantage, sponsored mobility, and contest mobility

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryMore than 200 freshly minted doctoral graduates enter the field of organization science every year. A non-trivial number of existing faculty members move from one university to another every year, while other organization science faculty leave academia to enter retirement, consulting, or industry. Despite the importance of this large, complex system of entries and exits, few attempts have been made to explicitly understand how the system works. Drawing upon sociology of science and careers research, we studied the underlying form of the position allocation system by focusing on the relative importance of research success and prior affiliations as antecedents of movement and stability across positions. We used three theoretical models: accumulative advantage, sponsored mobility, and contest mobility. Tracking hundreds of faculty members for 16 years post doctorate, we find a downward cascading of affiliation prestige over time that affects people more dramatically and quickly than we expected, especially women. Accumulative advantage, the most predictive of our models, does help to maintain relative but not absolute prestige, at least until its effects wane in later years of the career. These findings are relevant to scholars interested in the sociology of science, organization scholars interested in the underlying dynamics of their discipline, and individuals making career choices.

show abstract

Who Complains to Journal Editors and What Happens*

Cited by 35 publications

References 10 publications

Guidelines for Science: Evidence and Checklists

Guidelines for Science: Evidence and Checklists

Understanding and supporting anonymity policies in peer review

The allocation of prestigious positions in organizational science: accumulative advantage, sponsored mobility, and contest mobility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About