IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0236927.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the pressure to fill journal quotas bias evaluation?: Evidence from publication delays and rejection rates

Author

Listed:
  • Brian Park
  • Eunhee Sohn
  • Soohun Kim

Abstract

Although the peer review system of academic journals is seen as fundamental to scientific achievement, a major threat to the validity of the system is a potential evaluation bias resulting from constraints at the journal level. In this study, we examine how the time pressure to maintain a fixed periodical quota for journal publication can influence a journal editor’s decision to accept or reject a paper at any given point in time. We find that an increase in publication backlog, proxied as the average delay between paper acceptance and print publication, is correlated with an increase in the subsequent rejection rates of new submissions. Our findings suggest that time pressures inherent in the peer review system may be a source of potential evaluator bias, calling for a need to reconsider the current quota system.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian Park & Eunhee Sohn & Soohun Kim, 2020. "Does the pressure to fill journal quotas bias evaluation?: Evidence from publication delays and rejection rates," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-11, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0236927
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236927
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0236927
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0236927&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0236927?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin G. Kocher & Julius Pahlke & Stefan T. Trautmann, 2013. "Tempus Fugit : Time Pressure in Risky Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(10), pages 2380-2391, October.
    2. Jeffrey Beall, 2012. "Predatory publishers are corrupting open access," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7415), pages 179-179, September.
    3. Peter A. Lawrence, 2003. "The politics of publication," Nature, Nature, vol. 422(6929), pages 259-261, March.
    4. David N. Laband, 1990. "Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics?: Preliminary Evidence from Authors," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 105(2), pages 341-352.
    5. Sutter, Matthias & Kocher, Martin & Strau[ss], Sabine, 2003. "Bargaining under time pressure in an experimental ultimatum game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 341-347, December.
    6. Roth, Alvin E & Murnighan, J Keith & Schoumaker, Francoise, 1988. "The Deadline Effect in Bargaining: Some Experimental Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(4), pages 806-823, September.
    7. Kohei Kawaguchi & Kosuke Uetake & Yasutora Watanabe, 2019. "Effectiveness of Product Recommendations Under Time and Crowd Pressures," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(2), pages 253-273, March.
    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. Einav Baharav Shlezinger & Rasha Mosleh & Gil Ben-David & Eedy Mezer & Tamara Wygnanski-Jaffe, 2024. "The multifaceted factors affecting the publication times of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus articles: what has changed in two decades," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5047-5073, September.

    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. Emin Karagözoglu & Martin G. Kocher, 2015. "Bargaining under Time Pressure," CESifo Working Paper Series 5685, CESifo.
    2. Buckert, Magdalena & Oechssler, Jörg & Schwieren, Christiane, 2017. "Imitation under stress," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 252-266.
    3. Kocher, Martin G. & Sutter, Matthias, 2006. "Time is money--Time pressure, incentives, and the quality of decision-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 375-392, November.
    4. Recalde, María P. & Riedl, Arno & Vesterlund, Lise, 2018. "Error-prone inference from response time: The case of intuitive generosity in public-good games," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 132-147.
    5. Lindner, Florian, 2014. "Decision time and steps of reasoning in a competitive market entry game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 7-11.
    6. Martin G. Kocher & David Schindler & Stefan T. Trautmann & Yilong Xu, 2019. "Risk, time pressure, and selection effects," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 216-246, March.
    7. De Paola, Maria & Gioia, Francesca, 2016. "Who performs better under time pressure? Results from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 37-53.
    8. Banerjee, Priyodorshi & Das, Tanmoy, 2021. "Risky decision under laboratory deadline with experience and indirect self-selection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C).
    9. Emin Karagözoğlu & Martin G. Kocher, 2019. "Bargaining under time pressure from deadlines," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 419-440, June.
    10. Conte, Anna & Scarsini, Marco & Sürücü, Oktay, 2016. "The impact of time limitation: Insights from a queueing experiment," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 260-274, May.
    11. Thomas Buser & Roel van Veldhuizen & Yang Zhong, 2022. "Time Pressure Preferences," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 22-054/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    12. Marcela Ibanez & Simon Czermak & Matthias Sutter, "undated". "Searching for a better deal - On the influence of group decision making, time pressure and gender in a search experiment," Working Papers 2008-05, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    13. 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.
    14. Anders Poulsen & Axel Sonntag, 2019. "Focality is Intuitive - Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Time Pressure in Coordination Games," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 19-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    15. Conte, Anna & Scarsini, Marco & Sürücü, Oktay, 2015. "Does time pressure impair performance? An experiment on queueing behavior," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 538, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    16. Lindner, Florian & Sutter, Matthias, 2013. "Level-k reasoning and time pressure in the 11–20 money request game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 542-545.
    17. Dilmaghani, Maryam, 2020. "Gender differences in performance under time constraint: Evidence from chess tournaments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    18. Martin G. Kocher & Julius Pahlke & Stefan T. Trautmann, 2013. "Tempus Fugit : Time Pressure in Risky Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(10), pages 2380-2391, October.
    19. Balafoutas, Loukas & Jaber-Lopez, Tarek, 2018. "Impunity under pressure: On the role of emotions as a commitment device," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 112-114.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:3:p:260-274 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. 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.

    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:plo:pone00:0236927. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.