IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v83y2010i2d10.1007_s11192-009-0011-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A content analysis of referees’ comments: how do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ?

Author

Listed:
  • Lutz Bornmann

    (ETH Zurich)

  • Christophe Weymuth

    (Biosynth AG)

  • Hans-Dieter Daniel

    (ETH Zurich
    University of Zurich)

Abstract

Using the data of a comprehensive evaluation study on the peer review process of Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), we examined in this study the way in which referees’ comments differ on manuscripts rejected at AC-IE and later published in either a low-impact journal (Tetrahedron Letters, n = 54) or a high-impact journal (Journal of the American Chemical Society, n = 42). For this purpose, a content analysis was performed of comments which led to the rejection of the manuscripts at AC-IE. For the content analysis, a classification scheme with thematic areas developed by Bornmann et al. (2008) was used. As the results of the analysis demonstrate, a large number of negative comments from referees in the areas “Relevance of contribution” and “Design/Conception” are clear signs that a manuscript rejected at AC-IE will not be published later in a high-impact journal. The number of negative statements in the areas “Writing/Presentation,” “Discussion of results,” “Method/Statistics,” and “Reference to the literature and documentation,” on the other hand, had no statistically significant influence on the probability that a rejected manuscript would later be published in a low- or high-impact journal. The results of this study have various implications for authors, journal editors and referees.

Suggested Citation

  • Lutz Bornmann & Christophe Weymuth & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2010. "A content analysis of referees’ comments: how do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 493-506, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:83:y:2010:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-009-0011-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0011-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-009-0011-4
    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/s11192-009-0011-4?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. Philip Abelson, 1990. "Mechanisms for evaluating scientific information and the role of peer review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 41(3), pages 216-222, April.
    2. Editors The, 2008. "Content," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 3(3), pages 1-1, December.
    3. Editors The, 2008. "Content," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-1, July.
    4. David Adam & Jonathan Knight, 2002. "Publish, and be damned..," Nature, Nature, vol. 419(6909), pages 772-776, October.
    5. Editors The, 2008. "Content," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-1, November.
    6. J. Scott Long & Jeremy Freese, 2006. "Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables using Stata, 2nd Edition," Stata Press books, StataCorp LP, edition 2, number long2, March.
    7. Editors The, 2008. "Content," Basic Income Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 2(2), pages 1-2, January.
    8. Lutz Bornmann & Irina Nast & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2008. "Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejec," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(3), pages 415-432, December.
    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. Bornmann, Lutz & Schier, Hermann & Marx, Werner & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2012. "What factors determine citation counts of publications in chemistry besides their quality?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 11-18.
    2. Sugimoto, Cassidy R. & Larivière, Vincent & Ni, Chaoqun & Cronin, Blaise, 2013. "Journal acceptance rates: A cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measures," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 897-906.
    3. Meva Bayrak Karsli & Sinem Karabey & Nergiz Ercil Cagiltay & Yuksel Goktas, 2018. "Comparison of the discussion sections of PhD dissertations in educational technology: the case of Turkey and the USA," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1381-1403, December.
    4. Charles W. Fox, 2017. "Difficulty of recruiting reviewers predicts review scores and editorial decisions at six journals of ecology and evolution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 465-477, October.
    5. Lilith A. Whiley, 2021. "What can critical femininity offer reviewing? A case for reviewing with empathy," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 1638-1642, July.
    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.
    7. Niccolò Casnici & Francisco Grimaldo & Nigel Gilbert & Pierpaolo Dondio & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2017. "Assessing peer review by gauging the fate of rejected manuscripts: the case of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 533-546, October.
    8. Embiya Celik & Nuray Gedik & Güler Karaman & Turgay Demirel & Yuksel Goktas, 2014. "Mistakes encountered in manuscripts on education and their effects on journal rejections," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1837-1853, March.
    9. Lutz Bornmann & Hermann Schier & Werner Marx & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2011. "Does the h index for assessing single publications really work? A case study on papers published in chemistry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(3), pages 835-843, December.
    10. Rüdiger Mutz & Lutz Bornmann & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2015. "Testing for the fairness and predictive validity of research funding decisions: A multilevel multiple imputation for missing data approach using ex-ante and ex-post peer evaluation data from the Austr," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(11), pages 2321-2339, November.
    11. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.

    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. Jerome K. Vanclay, 2012. "Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 211-238, August.
    2. Embiya Celik & Nuray Gedik & Güler Karaman & Turgay Demirel & Yuksel Goktas, 2014. "Mistakes encountered in manuscripts on education and their effects on journal rejections," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1837-1853, March.
    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. Mario Paolucci & Francisco Grimaldo, 2014. "Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 663-688, June.
    5. Drahomira Herrmannova & Robert M. Patton & Petr Knoth & Christopher G. Stahl, 2018. "Do citations and readership identify seminal publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 239-262, April.
    6. Michael McAleer & Judit Olah & Jozsef Popp, 2018. "Pros and Cons of the Impact Factor in a Rapidly Changing Digital World," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 18-014/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Lutz Bornmann & Markus Wolf & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2012. "Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: how far do comments differ in language use?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 843-856, June.
    8. Olgica Nedić & Aleksandar Dekanski, 2016. "Priority criteria in peer review of scientific articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(1), pages 15-26, April.
    9. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "Research Misconduct—Definitions, Manifestations and Extent," Publications, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-12, October.
    10. Pardeep Sud & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "Evaluating altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1131-1143, February.
    11. Akram Osman & Naomie Salim & Faisal Saeed, 2019. "Quality dimensions features for identifying high-quality user replies in text forum threads using classification methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-26, May.
    12. Jie Zhao & Jianfei Wang & Suping Fang & Peiquan Jin, 2018. "Towards Sustainable Development of Online Communities in the Big Data Era: A Study of the Causes and Possible Consequence of Voting on User Reviews," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-18, September.
    13. Makri, Katerina & Papadas, Karolos & Schlegelmilch, Bodo B., 2021. "Global social networking sites and global identity: A three-country study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 482-492.
    14. Chetty, Krish & Aneja, Urvashi & Mishra, Vidisha & Gcora, Nozibele & Josie, Jaya, 2018. "Bridging the digital divide in the G20: Skills for the new age," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 12, pages 1-20.
    15. SeungGwan Lee & DaeHo Lee, 2018. "A personalized channel recommendation and scheduling system considering both section video clips and full video clips," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-14, July.
    16. Caroline M. Hoxby, 2018. "The Productivity of US Postsecondary Institutions," NBER Chapters, in: Productivity in Higher Education, pages 31-66, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Catalina Granda & Franz Hamann, 2015. "Informality, Saving and Wealth Inequality in Colombia," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 88196, Inter-American Development Bank.
    18. Zhan Wang, 2021. "Social media brand posts and customer engagement," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(6), pages 685-699, November.
    19. Jinsuk Yang & Qing Hao & Mahmut Yaşar, 2023. "Institutional investors and cross‐border mergers and acquisitions: The 2000–2018 period," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 553-583, September.
    20. Gregory Thompson & Jeffrey Brown & Torsha Bhattacharya, 2012. "What Really Matters for Increasing Transit Ridership: Understanding the Determinants of Transit Ridership Demand in Broward County, Florida," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 49(15), pages 3327-3345, November.

    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:83:y:2010:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-009-0011-4. 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.