How Much Better Are the Most-Prestigious Journals? The Statistics of Academic Publication

References

• Amin M., Mabe M. Impact factors: Use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing (2000) . Elsevier Science http://www.elsevier.com/ framework_editors/pdfs/Perspectives1.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Armstrong J. S. Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Sci. Engrg. Ethics (1997) 3:63–84Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bailar J. C. Reliability, fairness, objectivity and other inappropriate goals in peer review. Behavioral Brain Sci. (1991) 14:137–138Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baumeister R. E. Dear journal editor, it’s me again: Sample cover letter for journal manuscript resubmissions. Dialogue (1990) 5(Fall):16Google Scholar
• Bedeian A. G. Thoughts on the making and remaking of the management discipline. J. Management Inquiry (1996a) 5:311–318Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bedeian A. G. Improving the journal review process: The question of ghostwriting. Amer. Psychologist (1996b) 51:1189Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bedeian A. G. The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. J. Management Inquiry (2003) 12:331–338Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bedeian A. G. Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Acad. Management Learn. Ed. (2004) 3:198–216Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bowen D. D., Perloff R., Jacoby J. Improving manuscript evaluation procedures. Amer. Psychologist (1972) 27:221–225Crossref, Google Scholar
• Calhoun M. A., Starbuck W. H., Easterby-Smith M.Mark, Lyles M. A. Barriers to creating knowledge. Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management (2003) (Blackwell, Oxford, UK) 473–492Google Scholar
• Campanario J. M. Have referees rejected some of the most-cited papers of all times? J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. (1996) 47:302–310Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campanario J. M. Peer review for journals as it stands today—Part 1. Sci. Comm. (1998a) 19:181–211Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campanario J. M. Peer review for journals as it stands today—Part 2. Sci. Comm. (1998b) 19:277–306Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cicchetti D. V. Reliability of reviews for the American Psychologist. Amer. Psychologist (1980) 35:300–303Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cicchetti D. V. A critique of Whitehurst’s “Interrater agreement for journal manuscript reviews”: De omnibus, disputandem est. Amer. Psychologist (1985) 40:563–568Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cicchetti D. V. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral Brain Sci. (1991) 14:119–186Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cicchetti D. V. The peer review of scientific documents: Suggestions for improvements. (2003) February 26). Presentation to the Committee on Research in Education, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
• Cicchetti D. V., Eron L. D. The reliability of manuscript reviewing for the Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Proc. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (1979) 22:596–600Google Scholar
• DiMaggio P. J., Powell W. W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Amer. Sociological Rev. (1983) 48:147–160Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellison G. The slowdown of the economics publishing process. J. Political Econom. (2002) 110:947–993Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frey B. S. Publishing as prostitution? Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success. Public Choice (2003) 116:205–223Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gans J. S., Shepherd G. B. How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists. J. Econom. Perspect. (1994) 8:165–179Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gottfredson S. D. Scientific quality and peer-group consensus. Dissertation Abstracts International (1977) 38 1950B(University Microfilms No. 77–19, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD) 588Google Scholar
• Gottfredson S. D. Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments. Amer. Psychologist (1978) 33(10):920–934Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gottfredson D. M., Gottfredson S. D. Criminal justice and (reviewer) behavior: How to get papers published. Criminal Justice Behavior (1982) 9(3):259–272Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gottfredson S. D., Garvey W. D., Goodnow J. E. Quality indicators in the scientific journal article publication process. JSAS Catalog Selected Doc. Psych. (1977) 7:74Google Scholar
• Hargens L. L. Variation in journal peer review systems: Possible causes and consequences. J. Amer. Medical Assoc. (1990) 263:1348–1352Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hargens L. L., Herting J. R. Neglected considerations in the analysis of agreement among journal referees. Scientometrics (1990) 19:91–106Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heider F.The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations (1958) (Wiley, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hendrick C. Editorial comment. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. (1976) 2:207–208Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hendrick C. Editorial comment. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. (1977) 3:1–2Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holbrook M. B. A note on sadomasochism in the review process: I hate when that happens. J. Marketing (1986) 50:104–106Crossref, Google Scholar
• Horrobin D. F. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. J. Amer. Medical Assoc. (1990) 263(10):1438–1441Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kiesler C. A. Confusion between reviewer reliability and wise editorial and funding decisions. Behavioral Brain Sci. (1991) 14:151–152Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lindsey D.The Scientific Publication System in Social Science: A Study of the Operation of Leading Professional Journals in Psychology, Sociology, and Social Work (1978) (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA) Google Scholar
• Luce D. R., Galanter E., Luce D. R., Bush R. R., Galanter E. Discrimination. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology (1963) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) 191–243Google Scholar
• Mahoney M. J. Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy Res. (1977) 1:161–175Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mahoney M. J. Psychology of the scientist: An evaluative review. Soc. Stud. Sci. (1979) 9(3):349–375Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mahoney M. J., Kazdin A. E., Kenigsberg M. Getting published. Cognitive Therapy Res. (1978) 2:69–70Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marsh H. W., Ball S. Interjudgmental reliability of review for the Journal of Educational Psychology. J. Ed. Psych. (1981) 73:872–880Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nylenna M., Riis P., Karlsson Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts: Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. J. Amer. Medical Assoc. (1994) 272:149–151Crossref, Google Scholar
• Palacios-Huerta I., Volij O. The measurement of intellectual influence. Econometrica (2004) 72:963–978Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peters D. P., Ceci S. J. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral Brain Sci. (1982) 5:187–255Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J., Leong A., Strehl K. Paradigm development and particularism: Journal publication in three scientific disciplines. Soc. Forces (1977) 55:938–951Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rousseeuw P. J. Why the wrong papers get published. Chance: New Directions Statist. Comput. (1991) 4(1):41–43Google Scholar
• Scarr S., Weber B. L. R. The reliability of reviews for the American Psychologist. Amer. Psych. (1978) 33:935Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schminke M. From the editors. Acad. Management J. (2002) 45:487–490Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scott W. A. Interreferee agreement on some characteristics of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Amer. Psychologist (1974) 29:698–702Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seidl C., Schmidt U., Grösche P. A beauty contest of referee processes of economics journals. (2001) . Manuscript, University of Kiel, KielGoogle Scholar
• Smigel E. D., Ross H. L., L H. Factors in the editorial decision. Amer. Sociologist (1970) 5(February):19–21Google Scholar
• Starbuck W. H. Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer reviews? J. Management Inquiry (2003) 12:344–351Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stigler S. M. Citation patterns in the journals of statistics and probability. Statist. Sci. (1994) 9:94–108Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stinchcombe A. L., Ofshe R. On journal editing as a probabilistic process. Amer. Sociologist (1969) 4:116–117Google Scholar
• Trieschmann J. S., Dennis A. R., Northcraft G. B., Niemi A. W. Serving multiple constituencies in business schools: MBA program versus research performance. Acad. Management J. (2000) 43:1130–1141Crossref, Google Scholar
• West B., Shlesinger M. The noise in natural phenomena. Amer. Scientist (1990) 78(January–February):40–45Google Scholar
• Whitehurst G. J. Interrater agreement for journal manuscript reviews. Amer. Psychologist (1984) 39:22–28Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wolff W. M. A study of criteria for journal manuscripts. Amer. Psychologist (1970) 25:636–639Crossref, Google Scholar