IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/custns/v3y2016i1p29-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Peer Review and Research Impact

Author

Listed:
  • Girish Mallapragada
  • Nandini Lahiri
  • Atul Nerkar

Abstract

In academia, citations received by articles are a critical metric for measuring research impact. An important aspect of publishing in academia is the ability of the authors to navigate the review process, and despite its critical role, very little is known about how the review process may impact the research impact of an article. We propose that characteristics of the review process, namely, number of revisions and time with authors during review, will influence the article’s research impact, post-publication. We also explore the moderating role of the authors’ social status on the relationship between the review process and the article’s success. We use a unique data set of 434 articles published in Marketing Science to test our propositions. After controlling for a host of factors, we find broad support for our propositions. We develop critical insights for researchers and academic administrators based on our findings. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Suggested Citation

  • Girish Mallapragada & Nandini Lahiri & Atul Nerkar, 2016. "Peer Review and Research Impact," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 3(1), pages 29-41, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:custns:v:3:y:2016:i:1:p:29-41
    DOI: 10.1007/s40547-015-0060-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s40547-015-0060-1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40547-015-0060-1?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. Girish Mallapragada & Rajdeep Grewal & Gary Lilien, 2012. "User-Generated Open Source Products: Founder's Social Capital and Time to Product Release," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 474-492, May.
    2. Wayne S. DeSarbo & Kamel Jedidi & Indrajit Sinha, 2001. "Customer value analysis in a heterogeneous market," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(9), pages 845-857, September.
    3. Ofer H. Azar, 2004. "Rejections and the importance of first response times," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 31(3), pages 259-274, March.
    4. 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.
    5. James Bessen & Eric Maskin, 2009. "Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(4), pages 611-635, December.
    6. Medoff, Marshall H., 2003. "Collaboration and the quality of economics research," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(5), pages 597-608, October.
    7. Pamela J. Hinds & Diane E. Bailey, 2003. "Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(6), pages 615-632, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Stefan Stremersch & Peter C. Verhoef, 2005. "Globalization of Authorship in the Marketing Discipline: Does It Help or Hinder the Field?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 585-594, February.
    10. Rajdeep Grewal & Gary L. Lilien & Girish Mallapragada, 2006. "Location, Location, Location: How Network Embeddedness Affects Project Success in Open Source Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1043-1056, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Girish Mallapragada & Nandini Lahiri & Atul Nerkar, 2016. "Peer Review and Research Impact," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 3(1), pages 29-41, March.
    2. van den Besselaar, Peter & Sandström, Ulf, 2015. "Early career grants, performance, and careers: A study on predictive validity of grant decisions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 826-838.
    3. Frederik T. Verleysen & Tim C.E. Engels, 2013. "A label for peer-reviewed books," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 428-430, February.
    4. Krist Vaesen & Joel Katzav, 2017. "How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-11, September.
    5. Wen Wen & Chris Forman & Stuart J. H. Graham, 2013. "Research Note ---The Impact of Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement on Open Source Software Project Success," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 1131-1146, December.
    6. Lutz Bornmann, 2015. "Interrater reliability and convergent validity of F1000Prime peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(12), pages 2415-2426, December.
    7. Wright, George & Rowe, Gene, 2011. "Group-based judgmental forecasting: An integration of extant knowledge and the development of priorities for a new research agenda," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 1-13, January.
    8. Kartik Kalaignanam & Tarun Kushwaha & Anand Nair, 2017. "The Product Quality Impact of Aligning Buyer-Supplier Network Structure and Product Architecture: an Empirical Investigation in the Automobile Industry," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 4(1), pages 1-17, September.
    9. Jens Jirschitzka & Aileen Oeberst & Richard Göllner & Ulrike Cress, 2017. "Inter-rater reliability and validity of peer reviews in an interdisciplinary field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1059-1092, November.
    10. Lutz Bornmann, 2012. "The Hawthorne effect in journal peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 857-862, June.
    11. repec:eee:intfor:v:27:y:2011:i:1:p:1-13 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Richard R Snell, 2015. "Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number of Peer Reviewers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    13. Gill, Chelsea & Mehrotra, Vishal & Moses, Olayinka & Bui, Binh, 2023. "The impact of the pitching research framework on AFAANZ grant applications," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    14. Smirnova, Inna & Reitzig, Markus & Alexy, Oliver, 2022. "What makes the right OSS contributor tick? Treatments to motivate high-skilled developers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    15. Shaheer, Noman Ahmed & Li, Sali, 2020. "The CAGE around cyberspace? How digital innovations internationalize in a virtual world," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 35(1).
    16. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and Cumulative Innovation:Causal Evidence from the Courts," IIR Working Paper 13-16, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    17. Leonard F.S. Wang & Arijit Mukherjee, 2014. "Patent Protection, Innovation and Technology Licensing," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3-4), pages 245-254, December.
    18. Schankerman, Mark & Schuett, Florian, 2016. "Screening for Patent Quality," CEPR Discussion Papers 11688, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Guido Cozzi, 2009. "Intellectual Property, Innovation, And Growth: Introduction To The Special Issue," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 56(4), pages 383-389, September.
    20. Fabio M. Manenti & Stefano Comino & Marialaura Parisi, 2005. "From Planning to Mature: on the Determinants of Open Source Take-Off," Industrial Organization 0507006, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 29 Sep 2005.
    21. Barge-Gil, Andrés & López, Alberto, 2014. "R&D determinants: Accounting for the differences between research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1634-1648.

    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:spr:custns:v:3:y:2016:i:1:p:29-41. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.