This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Lewison, G. Articles by van Rooyen, S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Reviewers’ and editors’ perceptions of submitted manuscripts with different numbers of authors, addresses and funding sources

The Wellcome Trust, London, UK, g.lewison{at}wellcome.ac.uk

Susan van Rooyen

BMJ, London, UK

The results of an experiment are described in which manuscripts submitted to a medical journal were each sent to two reviewers. One was blinded to the details of authorship, addresses and funding acknowledgements; the other was not. The intention was to see whether papers with larger numbers of these parameters would be more favourably reviewed, either because the reviewers were directly influenced by these factors or because the papers were really of higher quality. It turned out that the differences between the reviewers’ marks for each paper were not correlated with the parameters, but that the sums of the two were so correlated. This suggests that the tendency of papers with more authors, etc, to be published in higher-impact journals is actually due to their perceived quality and not to the numbers of authors per se.

Journal of Information Science, Vol. 25, No. 6, 509-511 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/016555159902500607


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?