IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/77716.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Sequential order as an extraneous factor in editorial decision

Author

Listed:
  • Orazbayev, Sultan

Abstract

Academic journal editors reject a significant portion of first submissions without sending them out for peer review. This decision, desk rejection, is made to reduce the workload on associate editors and referees, to give the submitting author a head start on revision or pursuit of an alternative venue, as well as to achieve quicker turnaround time for the journal. Desk rejection is a judgement based on the manuscript's perceived quality, impact and fit with the journal's scope. Could extraneous factors, which are unrelated to the content of a manuscript, affect the editorial decision? This paper examines whether the sequential order in which manuscripts are submitted to a large academic journal affects the editorial decision. Becoming the first submission on the editor's list of manuscripts to review increases the probability of a desk rejection by up to 7% without any effect on the likelihood of a rejection after peer review.

Suggested Citation

  • Orazbayev, Sultan, 2017. "Sequential order as an extraneous factor in editorial decision," MPRA Paper 77716, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:77716
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/77716/1/MPRA_paper_77716.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua S. Gans & George B. Shepherd, 1994. "How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 165-179, Winter.
    2. Steven M. Shugan, 2007. "The Editor's Secrets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 589-595, 09-10.
    3. R. Preston McAfee, 2016. "Edifying Editing," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 61(1), pages 110-118, March.
    4. Ausloos, Marcel & Nedic, Olgica & Dekanski, Aleksandar & Mrowinski, Maciej J. & Fronczak, Piotr & Fronczak, Agata, 2017. "Day of the week effect in paper submission/acceptance/rejection to/in/by peer review journals. II. An ARCH econometric-like modeling," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 468(C), pages 462-474.
    5. Daniel Feenberg & Ina Ganguli & Patrick Gaulé & Jonathan Gruber, 2017. "It’s Good to Be First: Order Bias in Reading and Citing NBER Working Papers," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(1), pages 32-39, March.
    6. Maciej J. Mrowinski & Agata Fronczak & Piotr Fronczak & Olgica Nedic & Marcel Ausloos, 2016. "Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(1), pages 271-286, April.
    7. Ausloos, Marcel & Nedic, Olgica & Dekanski, Aleksandar, 2016. "Day of the week effect in paper submission/acceptance/rejection to/in/by peer review journals," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 456(C), pages 197-203.
    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. Yushan Hu & Ben G. Li, 2021. "The production economics of economics production," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 228-255, February.
    2. Cătălin Emilian Boja & Claudiu Herţeliu & Marian Dârdală & Bogdan Vasile Ileanu, 2018. "Day of the week submission effect for accepted papers in Physica A, PLOS ONE, Nature and Cell," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 887-918, November.

    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. Maciej J Mrowinski & Piotr Fronczak & Agata Fronczak & Marcel Ausloos & Olgica Nedic, 2017. "Artificial intelligence in peer review: How can evolutionary computation support journal editors?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-11, September.
    2. Rose, Michael E. & Opolot, Daniel C. & Georg, Co-Pierre, 2022. "Discussants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    3. Sahana Roy Chowdhury, 2016. "When do referees shirk in a peer review process?," Economics and Business Letters, Oviedo University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 45-49.
    4. Marcel Ausloos & Olgica Nedič & Aleksandar Dekanski, 2019. "Correlations between submission and acceptance of papers in peer review journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 279-302, April.
    5. Liang Meng & Haifeng Wang & Pengfei Han, 2020. "Getting a head start: turn-of-the-month submission effect for accepted papers in management journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2577-2595, September.
    6. Ausloos, Marcel & Nedic, Olgica & Dekanski, Aleksandar & Mrowinski, Maciej J. & Fronczak, Piotr & Fronczak, Agata, 2017. "Day of the week effect in paper submission/acceptance/rejection to/in/by peer review journals. II. An ARCH econometric-like modeling," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 468(C), pages 462-474.
    7. Liu, Tianhao, 2021. "A study on day-of-week effect of submission: Based on the data of JSFST," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 563(C).
    8. Maciej J. Mrowinski & Agata Fronczak & Piotr Fronczak & Olgica Nedic & Aleksandar Dekanski, 2020. "The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 115-133, October.
    9. Medoff, Marshall H., 2003. "Collaboration and the quality of economics research," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(5), pages 597-608, October.
    10. Brogaard, Jonathan & Engelberg, Joseph & Parsons, Christopher A., 2014. "Networks and productivity: Causal evidence from editor rotations," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 251-270.
    11. Hendrik P. van Dalen, 1999. "The Golden Age of Nobel Economists," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 43(2), pages 19-35, October.
    12. Hendrik P. van Dalen, 2003. "Pluralism in Economics: A Public Good or a Public Bad?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 03-034/1, Tinbergen Institute, revised 18 May 2004.
    13. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
    14. Cătălin Emilian Boja & Claudiu Herţeliu & Marian Dârdală & Bogdan Vasile Ileanu, 2018. "Day of the week submission effect for accepted papers in Physica A, PLOS ONE, Nature and Cell," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 887-918, November.
    15. Dell'Anno, Roberto & Caferra, Rocco & Morone, Andrea, 2020. "A “Trojan Horse” in the peer-review process of fee-charging economic journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3).
    16. Daoud, Adel & Kohl, Sebastian, 2016. "How much do sociologists write about economic topics? Using big data to test some conventional views in economic sociology, 1890 to 2014," MPIfG Discussion Paper 16/7, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    17. Ofer H. Azar, 2006. "The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 50(1), pages 37-50, March.
    18. Syed Hasan & Robert Breunig, 2021. "Article length and citation outcomes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7583-7608, September.
    19. Lyudmyla Shkulipa, 2021. "Evaluation of accounting journals by coverage of accounting topics in 2018–2019," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7251-7327, September.
    20. Jussi Heikkilä & Timo Ali-Vehmas & Julius Rissanen, 2021. "The Link Between Standardization and Economic Growth: A Bibliometric Analysis," International Journal of Standardization Research (IJSR), IGI Global, vol. 19(1), pages 1-25, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    desk rejection; sequential order effect; decision fatigue; peer review.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A19 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Other
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D89 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Other
    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General

    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:pra:mprapa:77716. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.