Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDuBroy, Michelle
dc.date.accessioned2021-08-04T00:21:13Z
dc.date.available2021-08-04T00:21:13Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.issn1715-720X
dc.identifier.doi10.18438/eblip29936
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/406549
dc.description.abstractObjective – To examine the peer review process at a single journal. Design – Analysis of business records. Setting – Peer review system of a single journal. Subjects – Documents produced when reviewing manuscripts submitted for publication to journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition and reviewed in the year 2000. Methods – Peer review process information was extracted from the journal’s archives. Various aspects, such as review sequences and decision rules, were analysed and summarised in tables. Main results – Of the 1899 manuscripts reviewed in the year 2000, 46% (n = 878) were accepted for publication and 54% (n = 1021) were rejected. On average, a manuscript received 2.6 reviews before an editor made a publication decision. Just over half (n = 962, approx. 51%) of manuscripts were subject to two review steps. A small number of manuscripts (n = 104, approx. 5.5%) were subject to 5, 6 or 7 review steps. The more steps an article was subject to, the greater likelihood it would be accepted. Editors “generally follow a so-called clear-cut rule” (p.11) in which manuscripts accepted for publication must be considered both important and suitable for publication by at least two peer reviewers. Conclusion – The results “give a sense of commitment [and care] ...probably typical of most prestigious journals” (p.11).
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherUniversity of Alberta
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom156
dc.relation.ispartofpageto157
dc.relation.ispartofissue2
dc.relation.ispartofjournalEvidence Based Library and Information Practice
dc.relation.ispartofvolume16
dc.subject.fieldofresearchLibrary and information studies
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4610
dc.subject.keywordsScience & Technology
dc.subject.keywordsInformation Science & Library Science
dc.titleManuscripts Published in a Specific Chemistry Journal Must Be Both Important and Suitable According to Peer Reviewers
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dcterms.bibliographicCitationDuBroy, M, Manuscripts Published in a Specific Chemistry Journal Must Be Both Important and Suitable According to Peer Reviewers, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 2021, 16 (2), pp. 156-157
dcterms.licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
dc.date.updated2021-08-03T05:10:15Z
dc.description.versionVersion of Record (VoR)
gro.rights.copyright© 2021 DuBroy. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0 International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this one.
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorDuBroy, Michelle


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record