dc.contributor.author | DuBroy, Michelle | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-08-04T00:21:13Z | |
dc.date.available | 2021-08-04T00:21:13Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2021 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1715-720X | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.18438/eblip29936 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10072/406549 | |
dc.description.abstract | Objective – 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.peerreviewed | Yes | |
dc.language | English | |
dc.publisher | University of Alberta | |
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom | 156 | |
dc.relation.ispartofpageto | 157 | |
dc.relation.ispartofissue | 2 | |
dc.relation.ispartofjournal | Evidence Based Library and Information Practice | |
dc.relation.ispartofvolume | 16 | |
dc.subject.fieldofresearch | Library and information studies | |
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode | 4610 | |
dc.subject.keywords | Science & Technology | |
dc.subject.keywords | Information Science & Library Science | |
dc.title | Manuscripts Published in a Specific Chemistry Journal Must Be Both Important and Suitable According to Peer Reviewers | |
dc.type | Journal article | |
dc.type.description | C1 - Articles | |
dcterms.bibliographicCitation | DuBroy, 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.license | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ | |
dc.date.updated | 2021-08-03T05:10:15Z | |
dc.description.version | Version 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.hasfulltext | Full Text | |
gro.griffith.author | DuBroy, Michelle | |