IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v122y2020i3d10.1007_s11192-019-03343-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do journals of different rank instruct peer reviewers? Reviewer guidelines in the field of management

Author

Listed:
  • Marco Seeber

    (University of Agder)

Abstract

Current knowledge on peer review consists of general formulations of its goals and micro level accounts of its practice, while journals’ attempts to guide and shape peer review have hardly been investigated so far. This article addresses this gap by studying the content of the reviewer guidelines (RG) of 46 journals in the field of management, as editors may use guidelines to nudge reviewers considering all relevant criteria, properly, and consistently with the needs of the journal. The analysis reveals remarkable differences between the instructions for reviewers of journals of different rank. Average and low rank journals mostly use evaluation forms, they emphasize the empirical contribution and the quality of communication. RG of high rank journals are texts; they stress the theoretical contribution and methodological validity in strict terms. RG of very high rank journals stand even further apart, as they include 45% less gatekeeping instructions but four times more developmental instructions. While developmental instructions may help retaining the most innovative contributions, the fact that they are common only in very high rank journals may represent another case of cumulative advantage in science.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco Seeber, 2020. "How do journals of different rank instruct peer reviewers? Reviewer guidelines in the field of management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1387-1405, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:122:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03343-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03343-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-019-03343-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-019-03343-1?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. Rauno V. Alatalo & Johanna Mappes & Mark A. Elgar, 1997. "Heritabilities and paradigm shifts," Nature, Nature, vol. 385(6615), pages 402-403, January.
    2. Terttu Luukkonen, 2012. "Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 48-60, February.
    3. Flaminio Squazzoni & Elise Brezis & Ana Marušić, 2017. "Scientometrics of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 501-502, October.
    4. Philippe Mongeon & Adèle Paul-Hus, 2016. "The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 213-228, January.
    5. Juan Miguel Campanario, 1996. "Have referees rejected some of the most‐cited articles of all times?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 47(4), pages 302-310, April.
    6. Juan Miguel Campanario, 2009. "Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel Laureates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 549-565, November.
    7. Liv Langfeldt, 2006. "The policy challenges of peer review: managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 31-41, April.
    8. Nida ul Habib Bajwa & Markus Langer & Cornelius J. König & Hannah Honecker, 2019. "What might get published in management and applied psychology? Experimentally manipulating implicit expectations of reviewers regarding hedges," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1351-1371, September.
    9. Marco Seeber & Alberto Bacchelli, 2017. "Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 567-585, October.
    10. Emanuela Reale & Antonio Zinilli, 2017. "Evaluation for the allocation of university research project funding: Can rules improve the peer review?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 190-198.
    11. Gerardo Patriotta, 2017. "Crafting Papers for Publication: Novelty and Convention in Academic Writing," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(5), pages 747-759, July.
    12. Daniele Fanelli, 2009. "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-11, May.
    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. J. A. Garcia & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2020. "The author–reviewer game," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2409-2431, September.
    2. Bianchi, Federico & García-Costa, Daniel & Grimaldo, Francisco & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2022. "Measuring the effect of reviewers on manuscript change: A study on a sample of submissions to Royal Society journals (2006–2017)," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).

    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. Rodríguez Sánchez, Isabel & Makkonen, Teemu & Williams, Allan M., 2019. "Peer review assessment of originality in tourism journals: critical perspective of key gatekeepers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-11.
    2. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Macho-Stadler, Inés & Pérez-Castrillo, David, 2019. "Evaluation in research funding agencies: Are structurally diverse teams biased against?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1823-1840.
    3. Louis Mesnard, 2010. "On Hochberg et al.’s “The tragedy of the reviewer commons”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 903-917, September.
    4. Thomas Feliciani & Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Pablo Lucas & Flaminio Squazzoni & Ana Marušić & Kalpana Shankar, 2019. "A scoping review of simulation models of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 555-594, October.
    5. Weixi Xie & Pengfei Jia & Guangyao Zhang & Xianwen Wang, 2024. "Are reviewer scores consistent with citations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 4721-4740, August.
    6. Elisabeth Maria Schlagberger & Lutz Bornmann & Johann Bauer, 2016. "At what institutions did Nobel laureates do their prize-winning work? An analysis of biographical information on Nobel laureates from 1994 to 2014," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 723-767, November.
    7. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    8. Sergio Copiello, 2018. "On the money value of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 613-620, April.
    9. Elise S. Brezis & Aliaksandr Birukou, 2020. "Arbitrariness in the peer review process," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 393-411, April.
    10. García, J.A. & Montero-Parodi, J.J. & Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa & Fdez-Valdivia, J., 2023. "How to motivate a reviewer with a present bias to work harder," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    11. 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.
    12. Monica Aniela Zaharie & Marco Seeber, 2018. "Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer reviewers? A natural experiment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1587-1609, December.
    13. Julián D. Cortés & Daniel A. Andrade, 2022. "Winners and runners-up alike?—a comparison between awardees and special mention recipients of the most reputable science award in Colombia via a composite citation indicator," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    14. Wenqing Wu & Haixu Xi & Chengzhi Zhang, 2024. "Are the confidence scores of reviewers consistent with the review content? Evidence from top conference proceedings in AI," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4109-4135, July.
    15. Jonathan P. Tennant & Harry Crane & Tom Crick & Jacinto Davila & Asura Enkhbayar & Johanna Havemann & Bianca Kramer & Ryan Martin & Paola Masuzzo & Andy Nobes & Curt Rice & Bárbara Rivera-López & Tony, 2019. "Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-24, May.
    16. Tripathy, Prajukta & Jena, Pabitra Kumar & Mishra, Bikash Ranjan, 2024. "Systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis of energy efficiency," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    17. Maribel Vega-Arce & Gonzalo Salas & Gastón Núñez-Ulloa & Cristián Pinto-Cortez & Ivelisse Torres Fernandez & Yuh-Shan Ho, 2019. "Research performance and trends in child sexual abuse research: a Science Citation Index Expanded-based analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1505-1525, December.
    18. Antonio-José Moreno-Guerrero & María Elena Parra-González & Jesús López-Belmonte & Adrián Segura-Robles, 2022. "Science mapping analysis of “cultural” in web of science (1908–2019)," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 239-257, February.
    19. Adela Toscano-Valle & Antonio Sianes & Francisco Santos-Carrillo & Luis A. Fernández-Portillo, 2022. "Can the Rational Design of International Institutions Solve Cooperation Problems? Insights from a Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-22, June.
    20. Moustafa, Khaled, 2018. "Don't fall in common science pitfall!," FrenXiv ycjha, Center for Open Science.

    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:scient:v:122:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03343-1. 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.