scholarly journals Seasonal Entropy, Diversity and Inequality Measures of Submitted and Accepted Papers Distributions in Peer-Reviewed Journals

Entropy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel Ausloos ◽  
Olgica Nedic ◽  
Aleksandar Dekanski

This paper presents a novel method for finding features in the analysis of variable distributions stemming from time series. We apply the methodology to the case of submitted and accepted papers in peer-reviewed journals. We provide a comparative study of editorial decisions for papers submitted to two peer-reviewed journals: the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society (JSCS) and this MDPI Entropy journal. We cover three recent years for which the fate of submitted papers—about 600 papers to JSCS and 2500 to Entropy—is completely determined. Instead of comparing the number distributions of these papers as a function of time with respect to a uniform distribution, we analyze the relevant probabilities, from which we derive the information entropy. It is argued that such probabilities are indeed more relevant for authors than the actual number of submissions. We tie this entropy analysis to the so called diversity of the variable distributions. Furthermore, we emphasize the correspondence between the entropy and the diversity with inequality measures, like the Herfindahl-Hirschman index and the Theil index, itself being in the class of entropy measures; the Gini coefficient which also measures the diversity in ranking is calculated for further discussion. In this sample, the seasonal aspects of the peer review process are outlined. It is found that the use of such indices, non linear transformations of the data distributions, allow us to distinguish features and evolutions of the peer review process as a function of time as well as comparing the non-uniformity of distributions. Furthermore, t- and z-statistical tests are applied in order to measure the significance (p-level) of the findings, that is, whether papers are more likely to be accepted if they are submitted during a few specific months or during a particular “season”; the predictability strength depends on the journal.

2020 ◽  
Vol 125 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maciej J. Mrowinski ◽  
Agata Fronczak ◽  
Piotr Fronczak ◽  
Olgica Nedic ◽  
Aleksandar Dekanski

Abstract In this paper, we provide insight into the editorial process as seen from the perspective of journal editors. We study a dataset obtained from the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, which contains information about submitted and rejected manuscripts, in order to find differences between local (Serbian) and external (non-Serbian) submissions. We show that external submissions (mainly from India, Iran and China) constitute the majority of all submissions, while local submissions are in the minority. Most of submissions are rejected for technical reasons (e.g. wrong manuscript formatting or problems with images) and many users resubmit the same paper without making necessary corrections. Manuscripts with just one author are less likely to pass the technical check, which can be attributed to missing metadata. Articles from local authors are better prepared and require fewer resubmissions on average before they are accepted for peer review. The peer review process for local submissions takes less time than for external papers and local submissions are more likely to be accepted for publication. Also, while there are more men than women among external users, this trend is reversed for local users. In the combined group of local and external users, articles submitted by women are more likely to be published than articles submitted by men.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Flaminio Squazzoni ◽  
Giangiacomo Bravo ◽  
Pierpaolo Dondio ◽  
Mike Farjam ◽  
Ana Marusic ◽  
...  

This article examines gender bias in peer review with complete data on 145 journals in various fields of research, including about 1.7 million authors and 740,000 referees. We reconstructed three possible sources of bias, i.e., the editorial selection of referees, referee recommendations, and editorial decisions, and examined all their possible relationships. In line with previous research, we found that editors were sensitive to gender homophily in that they tended to match authors and referee by gender systematically. Results showed that in general manuscripts written by women as solo authors or co-authored by women are treated even more favorably by referees and editors. This is especially so in biomedicine and health journals, whereas women were treated relatively less favorably in social science & humanities journals, i.e., the field in which the ratio of female authors was the highest in our sample. Although with some caveat, our findings suggest that peer review and editorial processes in scholarly journals do not penalize manuscripts by women. However, considering the complex social nature of gender prejudices, journals should increase gender diversity among reviewers and editors as a means of correcting signals potentially biasing the perceptions of authors and referees.


2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela M. Hunter

AbstractIn an era where research data is readily accessible during the peer review process, several obstacles persist in verifying the data required for publication. While Supporting Information (SI) for all American Chemical Society (ACS) journals is freely available, there is no standardized review process, and errors frequently linger, despite peer review. The SI for submitted manuscripts routinely contains missing or incorrect data, as well as inconsistencies between the submitted manuscript and the SI. While rare, issues of data manipulation, including digitally altered spectra, and plagiarism have been identified. [


1994 ◽  
Vol 164 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-308
Author(s):  
Alan Lee ◽  
Gordon Parker

To facilitate the introduction of this new section, designed to shed light on the peer review process, the Editor has used the review of a paper of which he is a co-author. The referees for this paper were originally anonymous, but they both agreed to be named for the purposes of this article. The original article was twice the length of the published version. The effect of the assessment should be readily apparent. Editorial decisions were undertaken by members of the Editorial Board other than the current Editor.


1997 ◽  
Vol 87 (6) ◽  
pp. 972-978 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward R. Laws ◽  
T. Glenn Pait ◽  
John A. Jane

✓ As the first editor of the Journal of Neurosurgery, Louise Eisenhardt, acting with the advice of the editorial board, was responsible for making decisions on the acceptance or rejection of submitted manuscripts. Her log, covering the first 14 years of editorial decisions, is a record of neurosurgical progress and of the forces—scientific, technical and other—that shaped the field of neurosurgery. Any peer-review process is subject to pitfalls that become evident in retrospect, but an effective peer-review process is one of the basic ingredients of scientific progress. The decisions to accept or reject manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Neurosurgery during Eisenhardt's tenure are highlighted in this historical vignette.


2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenya Malcolm ◽  
Allison Groenendyk ◽  
Mary Cwik ◽  
Alisa Beyer

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document