Reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot?
An important topic in the scientific publication process is how well reviewers evaluate the quality of papers and how their recommendations influence editors’ decisions to accept or reject papers. Additionally, a particular concern for researchers from China and other countries with rapidly developi...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Campos-Arceiz, Ahimsa [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2015transfer abstract |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Umfang: |
6 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Discovery of nonbenzamidine factor VIIa inhibitors using a biaryl acid scaffold - Bolton, Scott A. ELSEVIER, 2013, Amsterdam [u.a.] |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:186 ; year:2015 ; pages:22-27 ; extent:6 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV023936789 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV023936789 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230625141914.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 180603s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a GBV00000000000213A.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV023936789 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0006-3207(15)00095-6 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | |a 570 | |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 570 |q DE-600 |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 540 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 630 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 22 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a 46.00 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Campos-Arceiz, Ahimsa |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot? |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2015transfer abstract | |
| 300 | |a 6 | ||
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a An important topic in the scientific publication process is how well reviewers evaluate the quality of papers and how their recommendations influence editors’ decisions to accept or reject papers. Additionally, a particular concern for researchers from China and other countries with rapidly developing scientific communities is whether there are potential biases affecting their manuscripts in the review process. To address these topics, we examined 4575 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation. For the 2093 papers sent out for review, reviewer recommendations strongly influenced the outcome of the review process. Reviewer recommendations of accept and minor revision were similar in their positive effects on editor decisions, while papers receiving at least one recommendation of reject (“the kiss of death”) were almost always rejected. Papers with more consistent reviews (e.g. both reviewers recommending a major revision) had a greater chance of acceptance than did papers with more variation (e.g. minor revision and reject). We found no evidence of editor bias against papers from China; however, reviewer recommendation for papers from China had a greater degree of agreement than did reviewers of papers from English-speaking countries (e.g. intra-class correlation of 0.25 vs. 0.55), due to reviewers of papers from China often agreeing that papers should be rejected or require major revision. Reviewers from China judged papers from China more harshly than did reviewers from other countries. Our results demonstrate that the review process is not a crapshoot; reviewers are providing useful information and editors are using this information to make reasonable decisions. | ||
| 520 | |a An important topic in the scientific publication process is how well reviewers evaluate the quality of papers and how their recommendations influence editors’ decisions to accept or reject papers. Additionally, a particular concern for researchers from China and other countries with rapidly developing scientific communities is whether there are potential biases affecting their manuscripts in the review process. To address these topics, we examined 4575 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation. For the 2093 papers sent out for review, reviewer recommendations strongly influenced the outcome of the review process. Reviewer recommendations of accept and minor revision were similar in their positive effects on editor decisions, while papers receiving at least one recommendation of reject (“the kiss of death”) were almost always rejected. Papers with more consistent reviews (e.g. both reviewers recommending a major revision) had a greater chance of acceptance than did papers with more variation (e.g. minor revision and reject). We found no evidence of editor bias against papers from China; however, reviewer recommendation for papers from China had a greater degree of agreement than did reviewers of papers from English-speaking countries (e.g. intra-class correlation of 0.25 vs. 0.55), due to reviewers of papers from China often agreeing that papers should be rejected or require major revision. Reviewers from China judged papers from China more harshly than did reviewers from other countries. Our results demonstrate that the review process is not a crapshoot; reviewers are providing useful information and editors are using this information to make reasonable decisions. | ||
| 650 | 7 | |a Editorial decision |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Manuscript review |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Major revision |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Chinese authors |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Inter-reviewer agreement |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a English-speaking authors |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Minor revision |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Immediate rejection |2 Elsevier | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Primack, Richard B. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Koh, Lian Pin |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier Science |a Bolton, Scott A. ELSEVIER |t Discovery of nonbenzamidine factor VIIa inhibitors using a biaryl acid scaffold |d 2013 |g Amsterdam [u.a.] |w (DE-627)ELV011767626 |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:186 |g year:2015 |g pages:22-27 |g extent:6 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_77 | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 46.00 |j Tiermedizin: Allgemeines |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 186 |j 2015 |h 22-27 |g 6 | ||
| 953 | |2 045F |a 570 | ||
| author_variant |
a c a aca |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
camposarceizahimsaprimackrichardbkohlian:2015----:eiwreomnainaddtrdcsosoaosrainoraiijsarphoa |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2015transfer abstract |
| bklnumber |
46.00 |
| publishDate |
2015 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025 doi GBV00000000000213A.pica (DE-627)ELV023936789 (ELSEVIER)S0006-3207(15)00095-6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 570 DE-600 540 VZ 610 VZ 630 VZ 22 ssgn 46.00 bkl Campos-Arceiz, Ahimsa verfasserin aut Reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot? 2015transfer abstract 6 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier An important topic in the scientific publication process is how well reviewers evaluate the quality of papers and how their recommendations influence editors’ decisions to accept or reject papers. Additionally, a particular concern for researchers from China and other countries with rapidly developing scientific communities is whether there are potential biases affecting their manuscripts in the review process. To address these topics, we examined 4575 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation. For the 2093 papers sent out for review, reviewer recommendations strongly influenced the outcome of the review process. Reviewer recommendations of accept and minor revision were similar in their positive effects on editor decisions, while papers receiving at least one recommendation of reject (“the kiss of death”) were almost always rejected. Papers with more consistent reviews (e.g. both reviewers recommending a major revision) had a greater chance of acceptance than did papers with more variation (e.g. minor revision and reject). We found no evidence of editor bias against papers from China; however, reviewer recommendation for papers from China had a greater degree of agreement than did reviewers of papers from English-speaking countries (e.g. intra-class correlation of 0.25 vs. 0.55), due to reviewers of papers from China often agreeing that papers should be rejected or require major revision. Reviewers from China judged papers from China more harshly than did reviewers from other countries. Our results demonstrate that the review process is not a crapshoot; reviewers are providing useful information and editors are using this information to make reasonable decisions. An important topic in the scientific publication process is how well reviewers evaluate the quality of papers and how their recommendations influence editors’ decisions to accept or reject papers. Additionally, a particular concern for researchers from China and other countries with rapidly developing scientific communities is whether there are potential biases affecting their manuscripts in the review process. To address these topics, we examined 4575 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation. For the 2093 papers sent out for review, reviewer recommendations strongly influenced the outcome of the review process. Reviewer recommendations of accept and minor revision were similar in their positive effects on editor decisions, while papers receiving at least one recommendation of reject (“the kiss of death”) were almost always rejected. Papers with more consistent reviews (e.g. both reviewers recommending a major revision) had a greater chance of acceptance than did papers with more variation (e.g. minor revision and reject). We found no evidence of editor bias against papers from China; however, reviewer recommendation for papers from China had a greater degree of agreement than did reviewers of papers from English-speaking countries (e.g. intra-class correlation of 0.25 vs. 0.55), due to reviewers of papers from China often agreeing that papers should be rejected or require major revision. Reviewers from China judged papers from China more harshly than did reviewers from other countries. Our results demonstrate that the review process is not a crapshoot; reviewers are providing useful information and editors are using this information to make reasonable decisions. Editorial decision Elsevier Manuscript review Elsevier Major revision Elsevier Chinese authors Elsevier Inter-reviewer agreement Elsevier English-speaking authors Elsevier Minor revision Elsevier Immediate rejection Elsevier Primack, Richard B. oth Koh, Lian Pin oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Bolton, Scott A. ELSEVIER Discovery of nonbenzamidine factor VIIa inhibitors using a biaryl acid scaffold 2013 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV011767626 volume:186 year:2015 pages:22-27 extent:6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U GBV_ILN_77 46.00 Tiermedizin: Allgemeines VZ AR 186 2015 22-27 6 045F 570 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025 doi GBV00000000000213A.pica (DE-627)ELV023936789 (ELSEVIER)S0006-3207(15)00095-6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 570 DE-600 540 VZ 610 VZ 630 VZ 22 ssgn 46.00 bkl Campos-Arceiz, Ahimsa verfasserin aut Reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot? 2015transfer abstract 6 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier An important topic in the scientific publication process is how well reviewers evaluate the quality of papers and how their recommendations influence editors’ decisions to accept or reject papers. Additionally, a particular concern for researchers from China and other countries with rapidly developing scientific communities is whether there are potential biases affecting their manuscripts in the review process. To address these topics, we examined 4575 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation. For the 2093 papers sent out for review, reviewer recommendations strongly influenced the outcome of the review process. Reviewer recommendations of accept and minor revision were similar in their positive effects on editor decisions, while papers receiving at least one recommendation of reject (“the kiss of death”) were almost always rejected. Papers with more consistent reviews (e.g. both reviewers recommending a major revision) had a greater chance of acceptance than did papers with more variation (e.g. minor revision and reject). We found no evidence of editor bias against papers from China; however, reviewer recommendation for papers from China had a greater degree of agreement than did reviewers of papers from English-speaking countries (e.g. intra-class correlation of 0.25 vs. 0.55), due to reviewers of papers from China often agreeing that papers should be rejected or require major revision. Reviewers from China judged papers from China more harshly than did reviewers from other countries. Our results demonstrate that the review process is not a crapshoot; reviewers are providing useful information and editors are using this information to make reasonable decisions. An important topic in the scientific publication process is how well reviewers evaluate the quality of papers and how their recommendations influence editors’ decisions to accept or reject papers. Additionally, a particular concern for researchers from China and other countries with rapidly developing scientific communities is whether there are potential biases affecting their manuscripts in the review process. To address these topics, we examined 4575 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation. For the 2093 papers sent out for review, reviewer recommendations strongly influenced the outcome of the review process. Reviewer recommendations of accept and minor revision were similar in their positive effects on editor decisions, while papers receiving at least one recommendation of reject (“the kiss of death”) were almost always rejected. Papers with more consistent reviews (e.g. both reviewers recommending a major revision) had a greater chance of acceptance than did papers with more variation (e.g. minor revision and reject). We found no evidence of editor bias against papers from China; however, reviewer recommendation for papers from China had a greater degree of agreement than did reviewers of papers from English-speaking countries (e.g. intra-class correlation of 0.25 vs. 0.55), due to reviewers of papers from China often agreeing that papers should be rejected or require major revision. Reviewers from China judged papers from China more harshly than did reviewers from other countries. Our results demonstrate that the review process is not a crapshoot; reviewers are providing useful information and editors are using this information to make reasonable decisions. Editorial decision Elsevier Manuscript review Elsevier Major revision Elsevier Chinese authors Elsevier Inter-reviewer agreement Elsevier English-speaking authors Elsevier Minor revision Elsevier Immediate rejection Elsevier Primack, Richard B. oth Koh, Lian Pin oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Bolton, Scott A. ELSEVIER Discovery of nonbenzamidine factor VIIa inhibitors using a biaryl acid scaffold 2013 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV011767626 volume:186 year:2015 pages:22-27 extent:6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U GBV_ILN_77 46.00 Tiermedizin: Allgemeines VZ AR 186 2015 22-27 6 045F 570 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025 doi GBV00000000000213A.pica (DE-627)ELV023936789 (ELSEVIER)S0006-3207(15)00095-6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 570 DE-600 540 VZ 610 VZ 630 VZ 22 ssgn 46.00 bkl Campos-Arceiz, Ahimsa verfasserin aut Reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot? 2015transfer abstract 6 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier An important topic in the scientific publication process is how well reviewers evaluate the quality of papers and how their recommendations influence editors’ decisions to accept or reject papers. Additionally, a particular concern for researchers from China and other countries with rapidly developing scientific communities is whether there are potential biases affecting their manuscripts in the review process. To address these topics, we examined 4575 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation. For the 2093 papers sent out for review, reviewer recommendations strongly influenced the outcome of the review process. Reviewer recommendations of accept and minor revision were similar in their positive effects on editor decisions, while papers receiving at least one recommendation of reject (“the kiss of death”) were almost always rejected. Papers with more consistent reviews (e.g. both reviewers recommending a major revision) had a greater chance of acceptance than did papers with more variation (e.g. minor revision and reject). We found no evidence of editor bias against papers from China; however, reviewer recommendation for papers from China had a greater degree of agreement than did reviewers of papers from English-speaking countries (e.g. intra-class correlation of 0.25 vs. 0.55), due to reviewers of papers from China often agreeing that papers should be rejected or require major revision. Reviewers from China judged papers from China more harshly than did reviewers from other countries. Our results demonstrate that the review process is not a crapshoot; reviewers are providing useful information and editors are using this information to make reasonable decisions. An important topic in the scientific publication process is how well reviewers evaluate the quality of papers and how their recommendations influence editors’ decisions to accept or reject papers. Additionally, a particular concern for researchers from China and other countries with rapidly developing scientific communities is whether there are potential biases affecting their manuscripts in the review process. To address these topics, we examined 4575 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation. For the 2093 papers sent out for review, reviewer recommendations strongly influenced the outcome of the review process. Reviewer recommendations of accept and minor revision were similar in their positive effects on editor decisions, while papers receiving at least one recommendation of reject (“the kiss of death”) were almost always rejected. Papers with more consistent reviews (e.g. both reviewers recommending a major revision) had a greater chance of acceptance than did papers with more variation (e.g. minor revision and reject). We found no evidence of editor bias against papers from China; however, reviewer recommendation for papers from China had a greater degree of agreement than did reviewers of papers from English-speaking countries (e.g. intra-class correlation of 0.25 vs. 0.55), due to reviewers of papers from China often agreeing that papers should be rejected or require major revision. Reviewers from China judged papers from China more harshly than did reviewers from other countries. Our results demonstrate that the review process is not a crapshoot; reviewers are providing useful information and editors are using this information to make reasonable decisions. Editorial decision Elsevier Manuscript review Elsevier Major revision Elsevier Chinese authors Elsevier Inter-reviewer agreement Elsevier English-speaking authors Elsevier Minor revision Elsevier Immediate rejection Elsevier Primack, Richard B. oth Koh, Lian Pin oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Bolton, Scott A. ELSEVIER Discovery of nonbenzamidine factor VIIa inhibitors using a biaryl acid scaffold 2013 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV011767626 volume:186 year:2015 pages:22-27 extent:6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U GBV_ILN_77 46.00 Tiermedizin: Allgemeines VZ AR 186 2015 22-27 6 045F 570 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025 doi GBV00000000000213A.pica (DE-627)ELV023936789 (ELSEVIER)S0006-3207(15)00095-6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 570 DE-600 540 VZ 610 VZ 630 VZ 22 ssgn 46.00 bkl Campos-Arceiz, Ahimsa verfasserin aut Reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot? 2015transfer abstract 6 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier An important topic in the scientific publication process is how well reviewers evaluate the quality of papers and how their recommendations influence editors’ decisions to accept or reject papers. Additionally, a particular concern for researchers from China and other countries with rapidly developing scientific communities is whether there are potential biases affecting their manuscripts in the review process. To address these topics, we examined 4575 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation. For the 2093 papers sent out for review, reviewer recommendations strongly influenced the outcome of the review process. Reviewer recommendations of accept and minor revision were similar in their positive effects on editor decisions, while papers receiving at least one recommendation of reject (“the kiss of death”) were almost always rejected. Papers with more consistent reviews (e.g. both reviewers recommending a major revision) had a greater chance of acceptance than did papers with more variation (e.g. minor revision and reject). We found no evidence of editor bias against papers from China; however, reviewer recommendation for papers from China had a greater degree of agreement than did reviewers of papers from English-speaking countries (e.g. intra-class correlation of 0.25 vs. 0.55), due to reviewers of papers from China often agreeing that papers should be rejected or require major revision. Reviewers from China judged papers from China more harshly than did reviewers from other countries. Our results demonstrate that the review process is not a crapshoot; reviewers are providing useful information and editors are using this information to make reasonable decisions. An important topic in the scientific publication process is how well reviewers evaluate the quality of papers and how their recommendations influence editors’ decisions to accept or reject papers. Additionally, a particular concern for researchers from China and other countries with rapidly developing scientific communities is whether there are potential biases affecting their manuscripts in the review process. To address these topics, we examined 4575 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation. For the 2093 papers sent out for review, reviewer recommendations strongly influenced the outcome of the review process. Reviewer recommendations of accept and minor revision were similar in their positive effects on editor decisions, while papers receiving at least one recommendation of reject (“the kiss of death”) were almost always rejected. Papers with more consistent reviews (e.g. both reviewers recommending a major revision) had a greater chance of acceptance than did papers with more variation (e.g. minor revision and reject). We found no evidence of editor bias against papers from China; however, reviewer recommendation for papers from China had a greater degree of agreement than did reviewers of papers from English-speaking countries (e.g. intra-class correlation of 0.25 vs. 0.55), due to reviewers of papers from China often agreeing that papers should be rejected or require major revision. Reviewers from China judged papers from China more harshly than did reviewers from other countries. Our results demonstrate that the review process is not a crapshoot; reviewers are providing useful information and editors are using this information to make reasonable decisions. Editorial decision Elsevier Manuscript review Elsevier Major revision Elsevier Chinese authors Elsevier Inter-reviewer agreement Elsevier English-speaking authors Elsevier Minor revision Elsevier Immediate rejection Elsevier Primack, Richard B. oth Koh, Lian Pin oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Bolton, Scott A. ELSEVIER Discovery of nonbenzamidine factor VIIa inhibitors using a biaryl acid scaffold 2013 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV011767626 volume:186 year:2015 pages:22-27 extent:6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U GBV_ILN_77 46.00 Tiermedizin: Allgemeines VZ AR 186 2015 22-27 6 045F 570 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025 doi GBV00000000000213A.pica (DE-627)ELV023936789 (ELSEVIER)S0006-3207(15)00095-6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 570 DE-600 540 VZ 610 VZ 630 VZ 22 ssgn 46.00 bkl Campos-Arceiz, Ahimsa verfasserin aut Reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot? 2015transfer abstract 6 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier An important topic in the scientific publication process is how well reviewers evaluate the quality of papers and how their recommendations influence editors’ decisions to accept or reject papers. Additionally, a particular concern for researchers from China and other countries with rapidly developing scientific communities is whether there are potential biases affecting their manuscripts in the review process. To address these topics, we examined 4575 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation. For the 2093 papers sent out for review, reviewer recommendations strongly influenced the outcome of the review process. Reviewer recommendations of accept and minor revision were similar in their positive effects on editor decisions, while papers receiving at least one recommendation of reject (“the kiss of death”) were almost always rejected. Papers with more consistent reviews (e.g. both reviewers recommending a major revision) had a greater chance of acceptance than did papers with more variation (e.g. minor revision and reject). We found no evidence of editor bias against papers from China; however, reviewer recommendation for papers from China had a greater degree of agreement than did reviewers of papers from English-speaking countries (e.g. intra-class correlation of 0.25 vs. 0.55), due to reviewers of papers from China often agreeing that papers should be rejected or require major revision. Reviewers from China judged papers from China more harshly than did reviewers from other countries. Our results demonstrate that the review process is not a crapshoot; reviewers are providing useful information and editors are using this information to make reasonable decisions. An important topic in the scientific publication process is how well reviewers evaluate the quality of papers and how their recommendations influence editors’ decisions to accept or reject papers. Additionally, a particular concern for researchers from China and other countries with rapidly developing scientific communities is whether there are potential biases affecting their manuscripts in the review process. To address these topics, we examined 4575 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation. For the 2093 papers sent out for review, reviewer recommendations strongly influenced the outcome of the review process. Reviewer recommendations of accept and minor revision were similar in their positive effects on editor decisions, while papers receiving at least one recommendation of reject (“the kiss of death”) were almost always rejected. Papers with more consistent reviews (e.g. both reviewers recommending a major revision) had a greater chance of acceptance than did papers with more variation (e.g. minor revision and reject). We found no evidence of editor bias against papers from China; however, reviewer recommendation for papers from China had a greater degree of agreement than did reviewers of papers from English-speaking countries (e.g. intra-class correlation of 0.25 vs. 0.55), due to reviewers of papers from China often agreeing that papers should be rejected or require major revision. Reviewers from China judged papers from China more harshly than did reviewers from other countries. Our results demonstrate that the review process is not a crapshoot; reviewers are providing useful information and editors are using this information to make reasonable decisions. Editorial decision Elsevier Manuscript review Elsevier Major revision Elsevier Chinese authors Elsevier Inter-reviewer agreement Elsevier English-speaking authors Elsevier Minor revision Elsevier Immediate rejection Elsevier Primack, Richard B. oth Koh, Lian Pin oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Bolton, Scott A. ELSEVIER Discovery of nonbenzamidine factor VIIa inhibitors using a biaryl acid scaffold 2013 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV011767626 volume:186 year:2015 pages:22-27 extent:6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U GBV_ILN_77 46.00 Tiermedizin: Allgemeines VZ AR 186 2015 22-27 6 045F 570 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Discovery of nonbenzamidine factor VIIa inhibitors using a biaryl acid scaffold Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:186 year:2015 pages:22-27 extent:6 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Discovery of nonbenzamidine factor VIIa inhibitors using a biaryl acid scaffold Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:186 year:2015 pages:22-27 extent:6 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| bklname |
Tiermedizin: Allgemeines |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Editorial decision Manuscript review Major revision Chinese authors Inter-reviewer agreement English-speaking authors Minor revision Immediate rejection |
| dewey-raw |
570 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Discovery of nonbenzamidine factor VIIa inhibitors using a biaryl acid scaffold |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Campos-Arceiz, Ahimsa @@aut@@ Primack, Richard B. @@oth@@ Koh, Lian Pin @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2015-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV011767626 |
| dewey-sort |
3570 |
| id |
ELV023936789 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV023936789</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230625141914.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">180603s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBV00000000000213A.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV023936789</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0006-3207(15)00095-6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">570</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">570</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">540</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">630</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">22</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">46.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Campos-Arceiz, Ahimsa</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">An important topic in the scientific publication process is how well reviewers evaluate the quality of papers and how their recommendations influence editors’ decisions to accept or reject papers. Additionally, a particular concern for researchers from China and other countries with rapidly developing scientific communities is whether there are potential biases affecting their manuscripts in the review process. To address these topics, we examined 4575 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation. For the 2093 papers sent out for review, reviewer recommendations strongly influenced the outcome of the review process. Reviewer recommendations of accept and minor revision were similar in their positive effects on editor decisions, while papers receiving at least one recommendation of reject (“the kiss of death”) were almost always rejected. Papers with more consistent reviews (e.g. both reviewers recommending a major revision) had a greater chance of acceptance than did papers with more variation (e.g. minor revision and reject). We found no evidence of editor bias against papers from China; however, reviewer recommendation for papers from China had a greater degree of agreement than did reviewers of papers from English-speaking countries (e.g. intra-class correlation of 0.25 vs. 0.55), due to reviewers of papers from China often agreeing that papers should be rejected or require major revision. Reviewers from China judged papers from China more harshly than did reviewers from other countries. Our results demonstrate that the review process is not a crapshoot; reviewers are providing useful information and editors are using this information to make reasonable decisions.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">An important topic in the scientific publication process is how well reviewers evaluate the quality of papers and how their recommendations influence editors’ decisions to accept or reject papers. Additionally, a particular concern for researchers from China and other countries with rapidly developing scientific communities is whether there are potential biases affecting their manuscripts in the review process. To address these topics, we examined 4575 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation. For the 2093 papers sent out for review, reviewer recommendations strongly influenced the outcome of the review process. Reviewer recommendations of accept and minor revision were similar in their positive effects on editor decisions, while papers receiving at least one recommendation of reject (“the kiss of death”) were almost always rejected. Papers with more consistent reviews (e.g. both reviewers recommending a major revision) had a greater chance of acceptance than did papers with more variation (e.g. minor revision and reject). We found no evidence of editor bias against papers from China; however, reviewer recommendation for papers from China had a greater degree of agreement than did reviewers of papers from English-speaking countries (e.g. intra-class correlation of 0.25 vs. 0.55), due to reviewers of papers from China often agreeing that papers should be rejected or require major revision. Reviewers from China judged papers from China more harshly than did reviewers from other countries. Our results demonstrate that the review process is not a crapshoot; reviewers are providing useful information and editors are using this information to make reasonable decisions.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Editorial decision</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Manuscript review</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Major revision</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Chinese authors</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Inter-reviewer agreement</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">English-speaking authors</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Minor revision</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Immediate rejection</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Primack, Richard B.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Koh, Lian Pin</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Bolton, Scott A. ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Discovery of nonbenzamidine factor VIIa inhibitors using a biaryl acid scaffold</subfield><subfield code="d">2013</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV011767626</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:186</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:22-27</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_77</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">46.00</subfield><subfield code="j">Tiermedizin: Allgemeines</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">186</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="h">22-27</subfield><subfield code="g">6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="953" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">045F</subfield><subfield code="a">570</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Campos-Arceiz, Ahimsa |
| spellingShingle |
Campos-Arceiz, Ahimsa ddc 570 ddc 540 ddc 610 ddc 630 ssgn 22 bkl 46.00 Elsevier Editorial decision Elsevier Manuscript review Elsevier Major revision Elsevier Chinese authors Elsevier Inter-reviewer agreement Elsevier English-speaking authors Elsevier Minor revision Elsevier Immediate rejection Reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot? |
| authorStr |
Campos-Arceiz, Ahimsa |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV011767626 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
570 - Life sciences; biology 540 - Chemistry & allied sciences 610 - Medicine & health 630 - Agriculture & related technologies |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
570 570 DE-600 540 VZ 610 VZ 630 VZ 22 ssgn 46.00 bkl Reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot? Editorial decision Elsevier Manuscript review Elsevier Major revision Elsevier Chinese authors Elsevier Inter-reviewer agreement Elsevier English-speaking authors Elsevier Minor revision Elsevier Immediate rejection Elsevier |
| topic |
ddc 570 ddc 540 ddc 610 ddc 630 ssgn 22 bkl 46.00 Elsevier Editorial decision Elsevier Manuscript review Elsevier Major revision Elsevier Chinese authors Elsevier Inter-reviewer agreement Elsevier English-speaking authors Elsevier Minor revision Elsevier Immediate rejection |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 570 ddc 540 ddc 610 ddc 630 ssgn 22 bkl 46.00 Elsevier Editorial decision Elsevier Manuscript review Elsevier Major revision Elsevier Chinese authors Elsevier Inter-reviewer agreement Elsevier English-speaking authors Elsevier Minor revision Elsevier Immediate rejection |
| topic_browse |
ddc 570 ddc 540 ddc 610 ddc 630 ssgn 22 bkl 46.00 Elsevier Editorial decision Elsevier Manuscript review Elsevier Major revision Elsevier Chinese authors Elsevier Inter-reviewer agreement Elsevier English-speaking authors Elsevier Minor revision Elsevier Immediate rejection |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
r b p rb rbp l p k lp lpk |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Discovery of nonbenzamidine factor VIIa inhibitors using a biaryl acid scaffold |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV011767626 |
| dewey-tens |
570 - Life sciences; biology 540 - Chemistry 610 - Medicine & health 630 - Agriculture |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Discovery of nonbenzamidine factor VIIa inhibitors using a biaryl acid scaffold |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV011767626 |
| title |
Reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot? |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV023936789 (ELSEVIER)S0006-3207(15)00095-6 |
| title_full |
Reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot? |
| author_sort |
Campos-Arceiz, Ahimsa |
| journal |
Discovery of nonbenzamidine factor VIIa inhibitors using a biaryl acid scaffold |
| journalStr |
Discovery of nonbenzamidine factor VIIa inhibitors using a biaryl acid scaffold |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
500 - Science 600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2015 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
22 |
| author_browse |
Campos-Arceiz, Ahimsa |
| container_volume |
186 |
| physical |
6 |
| class |
570 570 DE-600 540 VZ 610 VZ 630 VZ 22 ssgn 46.00 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Campos-Arceiz, Ahimsa |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025 |
| dewey-full |
570 540 610 630 |
| title_sort |
reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions for a conservation journal: is it just a crapshoot? and do chinese authors get a fair shot? |
| title_auth |
Reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot? |
| abstract |
An important topic in the scientific publication process is how well reviewers evaluate the quality of papers and how their recommendations influence editors’ decisions to accept or reject papers. Additionally, a particular concern for researchers from China and other countries with rapidly developing scientific communities is whether there are potential biases affecting their manuscripts in the review process. To address these topics, we examined 4575 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation. For the 2093 papers sent out for review, reviewer recommendations strongly influenced the outcome of the review process. Reviewer recommendations of accept and minor revision were similar in their positive effects on editor decisions, while papers receiving at least one recommendation of reject (“the kiss of death”) were almost always rejected. Papers with more consistent reviews (e.g. both reviewers recommending a major revision) had a greater chance of acceptance than did papers with more variation (e.g. minor revision and reject). We found no evidence of editor bias against papers from China; however, reviewer recommendation for papers from China had a greater degree of agreement than did reviewers of papers from English-speaking countries (e.g. intra-class correlation of 0.25 vs. 0.55), due to reviewers of papers from China often agreeing that papers should be rejected or require major revision. Reviewers from China judged papers from China more harshly than did reviewers from other countries. Our results demonstrate that the review process is not a crapshoot; reviewers are providing useful information and editors are using this information to make reasonable decisions. |
| abstractGer |
An important topic in the scientific publication process is how well reviewers evaluate the quality of papers and how their recommendations influence editors’ decisions to accept or reject papers. Additionally, a particular concern for researchers from China and other countries with rapidly developing scientific communities is whether there are potential biases affecting their manuscripts in the review process. To address these topics, we examined 4575 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation. For the 2093 papers sent out for review, reviewer recommendations strongly influenced the outcome of the review process. Reviewer recommendations of accept and minor revision were similar in their positive effects on editor decisions, while papers receiving at least one recommendation of reject (“the kiss of death”) were almost always rejected. Papers with more consistent reviews (e.g. both reviewers recommending a major revision) had a greater chance of acceptance than did papers with more variation (e.g. minor revision and reject). We found no evidence of editor bias against papers from China; however, reviewer recommendation for papers from China had a greater degree of agreement than did reviewers of papers from English-speaking countries (e.g. intra-class correlation of 0.25 vs. 0.55), due to reviewers of papers from China often agreeing that papers should be rejected or require major revision. Reviewers from China judged papers from China more harshly than did reviewers from other countries. Our results demonstrate that the review process is not a crapshoot; reviewers are providing useful information and editors are using this information to make reasonable decisions. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
An important topic in the scientific publication process is how well reviewers evaluate the quality of papers and how their recommendations influence editors’ decisions to accept or reject papers. Additionally, a particular concern for researchers from China and other countries with rapidly developing scientific communities is whether there are potential biases affecting their manuscripts in the review process. To address these topics, we examined 4575 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation. For the 2093 papers sent out for review, reviewer recommendations strongly influenced the outcome of the review process. Reviewer recommendations of accept and minor revision were similar in their positive effects on editor decisions, while papers receiving at least one recommendation of reject (“the kiss of death”) were almost always rejected. Papers with more consistent reviews (e.g. both reviewers recommending a major revision) had a greater chance of acceptance than did papers with more variation (e.g. minor revision and reject). We found no evidence of editor bias against papers from China; however, reviewer recommendation for papers from China had a greater degree of agreement than did reviewers of papers from English-speaking countries (e.g. intra-class correlation of 0.25 vs. 0.55), due to reviewers of papers from China often agreeing that papers should be rejected or require major revision. Reviewers from China judged papers from China more harshly than did reviewers from other countries. Our results demonstrate that the review process is not a crapshoot; reviewers are providing useful information and editors are using this information to make reasonable decisions. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U GBV_ILN_77 |
| title_short |
Reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot? |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Primack, Richard B. Koh, Lian Pin |
| author2Str |
Primack, Richard B. Koh, Lian Pin |
| ppnlink |
ELV011767626 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth oth |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T20:06:48.459Z |
| _version_ |
1803861526797352960 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV023936789</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230625141914.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">180603s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBV00000000000213A.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV023936789</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0006-3207(15)00095-6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">570</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">570</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">540</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">630</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">22</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">46.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Campos-Arceiz, Ahimsa</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">An important topic in the scientific publication process is how well reviewers evaluate the quality of papers and how their recommendations influence editors’ decisions to accept or reject papers. Additionally, a particular concern for researchers from China and other countries with rapidly developing scientific communities is whether there are potential biases affecting their manuscripts in the review process. To address these topics, we examined 4575 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation. For the 2093 papers sent out for review, reviewer recommendations strongly influenced the outcome of the review process. Reviewer recommendations of accept and minor revision were similar in their positive effects on editor decisions, while papers receiving at least one recommendation of reject (“the kiss of death”) were almost always rejected. Papers with more consistent reviews (e.g. both reviewers recommending a major revision) had a greater chance of acceptance than did papers with more variation (e.g. minor revision and reject). We found no evidence of editor bias against papers from China; however, reviewer recommendation for papers from China had a greater degree of agreement than did reviewers of papers from English-speaking countries (e.g. intra-class correlation of 0.25 vs. 0.55), due to reviewers of papers from China often agreeing that papers should be rejected or require major revision. Reviewers from China judged papers from China more harshly than did reviewers from other countries. Our results demonstrate that the review process is not a crapshoot; reviewers are providing useful information and editors are using this information to make reasonable decisions.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">An important topic in the scientific publication process is how well reviewers evaluate the quality of papers and how their recommendations influence editors’ decisions to accept or reject papers. Additionally, a particular concern for researchers from China and other countries with rapidly developing scientific communities is whether there are potential biases affecting their manuscripts in the review process. To address these topics, we examined 4575 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation. For the 2093 papers sent out for review, reviewer recommendations strongly influenced the outcome of the review process. Reviewer recommendations of accept and minor revision were similar in their positive effects on editor decisions, while papers receiving at least one recommendation of reject (“the kiss of death”) were almost always rejected. Papers with more consistent reviews (e.g. both reviewers recommending a major revision) had a greater chance of acceptance than did papers with more variation (e.g. minor revision and reject). We found no evidence of editor bias against papers from China; however, reviewer recommendation for papers from China had a greater degree of agreement than did reviewers of papers from English-speaking countries (e.g. intra-class correlation of 0.25 vs. 0.55), due to reviewers of papers from China often agreeing that papers should be rejected or require major revision. Reviewers from China judged papers from China more harshly than did reviewers from other countries. Our results demonstrate that the review process is not a crapshoot; reviewers are providing useful information and editors are using this information to make reasonable decisions.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Editorial decision</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Manuscript review</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Major revision</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Chinese authors</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Inter-reviewer agreement</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">English-speaking authors</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Minor revision</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Immediate rejection</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Primack, Richard B.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Koh, Lian Pin</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Bolton, Scott A. ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Discovery of nonbenzamidine factor VIIa inhibitors using a biaryl acid scaffold</subfield><subfield code="d">2013</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV011767626</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:186</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:22-27</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_77</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">46.00</subfield><subfield code="j">Tiermedizin: Allgemeines</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">186</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="h">22-27</subfield><subfield code="g">6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="953" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">045F</subfield><subfield code="a">570</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4017696 |