IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v18y2009i4p262-272.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reviewer and editor biases in journal peer review: an investigation of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie International Edition

Author

Listed:
  • Lutz Bornmann
  • Hans-Dieter Daniel

Abstract

This study examined the peer review process at the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition — the referees' recommendations and the editors' decisions to accept or reject submitted manuscripts for publication — for evidence of potential sources of bias. To analyze referees' recommendations, an ordinal regression model (ORM) with a total of 3,705 reviews by 1,542 referees on 1,744 manuscripts was used. To analyze the editors' decisions, a logistic regression model (LRM) with a total of 1,745 manuscripts was used. In addition to bias variables, an indicator (measured ex-post) for the scientific impact of a manuscript was taken into account. The results of the ORMs show that the number of institutions mentioned in the Acknowledgements of a manuscript, the share of authors having institutional affiliations in Germany, the institutional address of the referee (in Germany or not in Germany), and ‘author suggested a referee for the manuscript’ have statistically significant effects on the referees' recommendations. The LRM shows that the number of institutions that are mentioned in the Acknowledgements and the share of authors having institutional affiliations in Germany are potential sources of bias in the editors' decisions. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Lutz Bornmann & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2009. "Reviewer and editor biases in journal peer review: an investigation of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie International Edition," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 262-272, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:18:y:2009:i:4:p:262-272
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820209X477520
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Andreas Nishikawa-Pacher & Tamara Heck & Kerstin Schoch, 2023. "Open Editors: A dataset of scholarly journals’ editorial board positions," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 228-243.
    2. Quan-Hoang Vuong & Huyen Thanh T. Nguyen & Thanh-Hang Pham & Manh-Toan Ho & Minh-Hoang Nguyen, 2021. "Assessing the ideological homogeneity in entrepreneurial finance research by highly cited publications," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Zhang, Baolong & Wang, Hao & Deng, Sanhong & Su, Xinning, 2020. "Measurement and analysis of Chinese journal discriminative capacity," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1).
    4. Zhentao Liang & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2023. "Bias against scientific novelty: A prepublication perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 99-114, January.
    5. Bornmann, Lutz & Tekles, Alexander, 2021. "Convergent validity of several indicators measuring disruptiveness with milestone assignments to physics papers by experts," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    6. Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Citation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 851-862, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:rseval:v:18:y:2009:i:4:p:262-272. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    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.