• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Research policy >A model of the editorial process in academic journals
【24h】

A model of the editorial process in academic journals

机译：学术期刊中的编辑过程模型

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Editors of academic journals make their acceptance or rejection decisions about submitted papers based on their own prior assessment of the intrinsic quality of these papers augmented by the information in reviewer recommendations. In this paper, we theoretically analyze the editorial process of academic journals, and in particular, the editors' extraction of information about intrinsic paper quality from reviewers. We assume that, if a reviewer's own research is close to the research area of a paper, he is likely to have greater expertise in evaluating that paper (i.e., be an "expert" reviewer) but is also more likely to be positively or negatively biased with respect to it. On the other hand, "generalist" reviewers, whose own research is further away from the research area of the paper, are likely to be unbiased about it; however, their expertise in evaluating the paper is likely to be lower as well. We further argue that the editorial decisions of journals will deviate considerably from the socially optimal rule of accepting good papers and rejecting bad papers if the above potential reviewer biases are not taken into account by editors when choosing reviewers. We show that editors can make better editorial decisions if they choose the appropriate type of reviewer to evaluate a paper (in the one reviewer case) or the appropriate combination of reviewer types (in the two reviewer case), based on their own prior assessment of submitted papers. We also show that, if the editor can aggregate the information contained in multiple reviews efficiently, two reviewers are better than one as long as the cost of using an additional reviewer is moderate; however, two reviewers may be worse than one if the editor adopts ad hoc decision making rules such as requiring both reviewers to recommend acceptance of a paper before the journal can accept it.
机译：学术期刊的编辑根据他们本文的内在质量的基础上的提交文件的接受或拒绝决定，这些论文的内在质量通过审稿人建议的信息增加。在本文中，我们理论上分析了学术期刊的编辑过程，特别是编辑从审阅者提取有关内在纸质质量的信息。我们假设，如果审稿人自己的研究接近纸张的研究领域，他可能会在评估纸张（即是“专家”评论者）时具有更大的专业知识，但也更有可能是积极的或积极的偏见它。另一方面，“通用”评论者，其自身的研究进一步远离论文的研究领域，可能对此无偏见;然而，他们在评估论文方面的专业知识也可能更低。我们进一步争论期刊的编辑决策将大大偏离接受良好文件的社会最佳规则，并在选择审稿人时编辑未被编辑被考虑到上述潜在审核偏见。我们表明，如果他们选择适当类型的审稿人（在一个审阅者案件中）或审阅者类型的适当组合（在两个审阅者案件中），则编辑人员可以做出更好的编辑决策。提交论文。我们还表明，如果编辑可以效率地汇总多次评论中包含的信息，只要使用其他审核者的成本是适度的但是，如果编辑采用临时决策制定规则

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号