IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v19y2010i2p105-118.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From black box to white box at open access journals: predictive validity of manuscript reviewing and editorial decisions at Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

Author

Listed:
  • Lutz Bornmann
  • Werner Marx
  • Hermann Schier
  • Andreas Thor
  • Hans-Dieter Daniel

Abstract

More than 4,500 open access (OA) journals have now become established in science. But doubts exist about the quality of the manuscript selection process for publication in these journals. In this study we investigate the quality of the selection process of an OA journal, taking as an example the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP). ACP is working with a new system of public peer review. We examine the predictive validity of the ACP peer review system, namely, whether the process selects the best of the manuscripts submitted. We have data for 1,111 manuscripts that went through the complete ACP selection process in the years 2001 to 2006. The predictive validity was investigated on the basis of citation counts for the later published manuscripts. The results of the citation analysis confirm the predictive validity of the reviewers' ratings and the editorial decisions at ACP: Both covary with citation counts for the published manuscripts. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx & Hermann Schier & Andreas Thor & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2010. "From black box to white box at open access journals: predictive validity of manuscript reviewing and editorial decisions at Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 105-118, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:19:y:2010:i:2:p:105-118
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820210X510089
    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. Qianjin Zong & Yafen Xie & Jiechun Liang, 2020. "Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 607-623, October.
    2. Christian Schneijderberg & Nicolai Götze & Lars Müller, 2022. "A study of 25 years of publication outputs in the German academic profession," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 1-28, January.
    3. Jue Ni & Zhenyue Zhao & Yupo Shao & Shuo Liu & Wanlin Li & Yaoze Zhuang & Junmo Qu & Yu Cao & Nayuan Lian & Jiang Li, 2021. "The influence of opening up peer review on the citations of journal articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9393-9404, December.
    4. Chunli Wei & Jingyi Zhao & Jue Ni & Jiang Li, 2023. "What does open peer review bring to scientific articles? Evidence from PLoS journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2763-2776, May.

    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:19:y:2010:i:2:p:105-118. 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.