This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Possible Causes and Consequences

Lowell L. Hargens, PhD

JAMA. 1990;263(10):1348-1352.

Abstract
To investigate disciplinary differences in how scientific journals evaluate submissions, I collected data from the Astrophysical Journal, Physiological Zoology, and the American Sociological Review. Referees' evaluations of submissions to these journals differed strikingly: nearly half of the referee reports for American Sociological Review recommended outright rejection, while the corresponding proportions for the other two journals were about one fourth and one tenth. Final dispositions show even greater variation, with Astrophysical Journal accepting 91% of submissions, Physiological Zoology 59%, and American Sociological Review 13%. The journals also differed substantially in the average number of revisions of eventually accepted papers and the average time lags between submission and final editorial decisions. Such differences conform to claims that disciplinary differences in consensus on research priorities and procedures contribute to variation in typical journal peer review systems. Review systems, in turn, influence authors' experiences in the peer review process.

(JAMA. 1990;263:1348-1352)

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Sociology, University of Illinois, Urbana.

Footnotes
Presented at The First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Chicago, III, May 10-12, 1989.

Reprint requests to Department of Sociology, University of Illinois, 702 S Wright St, 326 Lincoln Hall, Urbana, IL 61801 (Dr Hargens).

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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The ups and downs of peer review
Benos et al.
Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2007;31:145-152.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Communication Regimes in Competition: The Current Transition in Scholarly Communication Seen through the Lens of the Sociology of Technology
Bohlin
Social Studies of Science 2004;34:365-391.
ABSTRACT  

The Sokal Affair in Context
Hilgartner
Science Technology Human Values 1997;22:506-522.
ABSTRACT  

Evaluating Peer Reviews: Pilot Testing of a Grading Instrument
Feurer et al.
JAMA 1994;272:98-100.
ABSTRACT