The luck of the referee draw: the effect of exchanging reviews

Authors: Bornmann, Lutz; Daniel, Hans-Dieter

Source: Learned Publishing, Volume 22, Number 2, April 2009 , pp. 117-125(9)

Publisher: Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers

Buy & download fulltext article:

The full text is free.

View now:

PDF 117kb

Or sign up for a free trial

Free trial available!

Abstract:

In journal peer review, editorial decisions on submitted manuscripts are informed by referees' expert recommendations; however, the choice of referees may affect these decisions. Using data from Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), this study tested what would have happened if referee reports had been received in a different order. In AC-IE's peer-review process, a manuscript is generally published only if two referees rate the results of the study as important and also recommend publication in the journal (what we have called the 'clear-cut' rule). For 23% of those manuscripts for which a third referee report arrived after the editorial decision was made (37 of 162), this rule would have led to a different decision if the third report had replaced either of the others.

Articles that cite this article?

Document Type: Research article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/2009207

Publication date: 2009-04-01

More about this publication?

Editor in Chief: Alan Singleton
North American Editor: Diane Scott-Lichter
Reviews Editor: Pippa Smart

Learned Publishing is the journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, published in collaboration with the Society for Scholarly Publishing. The journal is published quarterly in January/April/July/October.

Learned Publishing articles are available free online to members of ALPSP and SSP.
ALPSP members: log in to www.alpsp.org. If you do not have a password contact info@alpsp.org
SSP members: log in to the Member Center using your membership username and password. Further information info@sspnet.org