IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v3y2009i4p348-352.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Extent of type I and type II errors in editorial decisions: A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition

Author

Listed:
  • Bornmann, Lutz
  • Daniel, Hans-Dieter

Abstract

Selection processes are never faultless. We investigate the predictive validity of the manuscript selection process at Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), one of the prime chemistry journals worldwide, and conducted a citation analysis for manuscripts that were accepted by the journal or rejected but published elsewhere (n=1817). With the bibliometric data, we were able to calculate the extent of type I and type II errors of the selection decisions. We found that the decisions regarding 15% of the manuscripts show a type I error (accepted manuscripts that did not perform as well as or worse than the average rejected manuscript). Moreover, the decisions regarding 15% of the manuscripts are affected by a type II error (rejected manuscripts that performed equal to or above the average accepted manuscript).

Suggested Citation

  • Bornmann, Lutz & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2009. "Extent of type I and type II errors in editorial decisions: A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 348-352.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:3:y:2009:i:4:p:348-352
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2009.05.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157709000406
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2009.05.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lutz Bornmann & Gerlind Wallon & Anna Ledin, 2008. "Does the Committee Peer Review Select the Best Applicants for Funding? An Investigation of the Selection Process for Two European Molecular Biology Organization Programmes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(10), pages 1-11, October.
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2007. "Convergent validation of peer review decisions using the h index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 204-213.
    3. Craig, Iain D. & Plume, Andrew M. & McVeigh, Marie E. & Pringle, James & Amin, Mayur, 2007. "Do open access articles have greater citation impact?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 239-248.
    4. William H. Starbuck, 2005. "How Much Better Are the Most-Prestigious Journals? The Statistics of Academic Publication," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 180-200, April.
    5. Lutz Bornmann & Hans‐Dieter Daniel, 2008. "Selecting manuscripts for a high‐impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published else," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(11), pages 1841-1852, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bravo, Giangiacomo & Farjam, Mike & Grimaldo Moreno, Francisco & Birukou, Aliaksandr & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2018. "Hidden connections: Network effects on editorial decisions in four computer science journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 101-112.
    2. Nicolas Carayol, 2016. "The Right Job and the Job Right: Novelty, Impact and Journal Stratification in Science," Post-Print hal-02274661, HAL.
    3. Rüdiger Mutz & Tobias Wolbring & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2017. "The effect of the “very important paper” (VIP) designation in Angewandte Chemie International Edition on citation impact: A propensity score matching analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(9), pages 2139-2153, September.
    4. Bornmann, Lutz & Schier, Hermann & Marx, Werner & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2012. "What factors determine citation counts of publications in chemistry besides their quality?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 11-18.
    5. Bornmann, Lutz & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2010. "Citation speed as a measure to predict the attention an article receives: An investigation of the validity of editorial decisions at Angewandte Chemie International Edition," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 83-88.
    6. Eric Libby & Leon Glass, 2010. "The Calculus of Committee Composition," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(9), pages 1-8, September.
    7. Emre Sarigöl & David Garcia & Ingo Scholtes & Frank Schweitzer, 2017. "Quantifying the effect of editor–author relations on manuscript handling times," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 609-631, October.
    8. Chia-Lin Chang & Michael McAleer & Les Oxley, 2011. "What makes a great journal great in the sciences? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(1), pages 17-40, April.
    9. Benda, Wim G.G. & Engels, Tim C.E., 2011. "The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 166-182.
    10. Benda, Wim G.G. & Engels, Tim C.E., 2011. "The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 166-182, January.
    11. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benda, Wim G.G. & Engels, Tim C.E., 2011. "The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 166-182.
    2. Benda, Wim G.G. & Engels, Tim C.E., 2011. "The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 166-182, January.
    3. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet & Van den Besselaar, Peter, 2010. "A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: Different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 211-220.
    4. Vieira, Elizabeth S. & Cabral, José A.S. & Gomes, José A.N.F., 2014. "How good is a model based on bibliometric indicators in predicting the final decisions made by peers?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 390-405.
    5. David L. Anderson & John Tressler, 2013. "The Relevance of the “h-” and “g-” Index to Economics in the Context of A Nation-Wide Research Evaluation Scheme: The New Zealand Case," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 32(1), pages 81-94, March.
    6. Tomas Karlsson & Caroline Wigren, 2012. "Start-ups among university employees: the influence of legitimacy, human capital and social capital," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 297-312, June.
    7. Mark J. McCabe & Christopher M. Snyder, 2015. "Does Online Availability Increase Citations? Theory and Evidence from a Panel of Economics and Business Journals," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(1), pages 144-165, March.
    8. João Faria & Rajeev Goel, 2010. "Returns to networking in academia," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 103-117, July.
    9. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    10. Mike W. Peng, 2019. "Global competition and diffusion of the “A” list," Frontiers of Business Research in China, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-23, December.
    11. Nianhang Xu & Winnie P. H. Poon & Kam C. Chan, 2014. "Contributing Institutions and Authors in International Business Research: A Quality-Based Assessment," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 54(5), pages 735-755, October.
    12. Jerome K. Vanclay, 2012. "Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 211-238, August.
    13. John Tressler & David L. Anderson, 2012. "Citations as a Measure of the Research Outputs of New Zealand's Economics Departments: The Problem of 'Long and Variable Lags'," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 19(1), pages 17-40.
    14. Lyudmyla Shkulipa, 2021. "Evaluation of accounting journals by coverage of accounting topics in 2018–2019," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7251-7327, September.
    15. Hajar Sotudeh & Zahra Ghasempour & Maryam Yaghtin, 2015. "The citation advantage of author-pays model: the case of Springer and Elsevier OA journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(2), pages 581-608, August.
    16. Anne-Wil Harzing & Wilfred Mijnhardt, 2015. "Proof over promise: towards a more inclusive ranking of Dutch academics in Economics & Business," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 727-749, January.
    17. Oswald, Andrew J., 2015. "The Objective Measurement of World-Leading Research," IZA Discussion Papers 8829, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Benson Honig & Joseph Lampel & Donald Siegel & Paul Drnevich, 2014. "Ethics in the Production and Dissemination of Management Research: Institutional Failure or Individual Fallibility?," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 118-142, January.
    19. Erich Battistin & Marco Ovidi, 2022. "Rising Stars: Expert Reviews and Reputational Yardsticks in the Research Excellence Framework," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(356), pages 830-848, October.
    20. Daniel Sgroi & Andrew J. Oswald, 2013. "How Should Peer‐review Panels Behave?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0, pages 255-278, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:3:y:2009:i:4:p:348-352. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.