Editorial Board Membership, Time to Accept, and the Effect on the Citation Counts of Journal Articles

Fiala, Dalibor; Havrilova, C.; Dostál, Martin; Paralič, Ján

doi:10.3390/publications4030021

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This paper contributes to the almost non‐existent research on factors influencing publication and acceptance delays. As mentioned, to the best of our knowledge, few previous studies have performed correlation analyses between publication delay and JIF (Khosrowjerdi et al, 2011; Pautasso & Schäfer, 2010; Shah et al, 2016) or article citation (Fiala et al, 2016; Lin et al, 2016; Shen et al, 2015), whereas only two studies have analysed factors influencing or related to publication delay. One of these studies (Lotriet, 2012) performed a qualitative analysis, whereas Ellison (Ellison, 2002) performed a quantitative multivariate analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Publication delay has been extensively studied from different perspectives, such as quantifying the duration across different disciplines (Björk & Solomon, 2013) or countries (Zabala et al, 2022), its relationship with JIF (Khosrowjerdi et al, 2011;Pautasso & Schäfer, 2010;Shah et al, 2016;Yu et al, 2022), authors' characteristics (Sebo et al, 2019;Sevryugina & Dicks, 2022;Taşkın et al, 2022;Xu et al, 2021), and article citations (Fiala et al, 2016;Lin et al, 2016;Shen et al, 2015). Additionally, studies have been conducted to quantify the different delays included in the overall publication delay (Amat, 2008), assess the review process (Bilalli et al, 2021), provide practical suggestions for reducing delays (Ralph, 2016), study the effects of the early view features (Al & Soydal, 2017;Heneberg, 2013), and investigate the influence of different business models of publishing (Bilalli et al, 2021;Mondry et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Empirical analysis of factors influencing delay in article acceptance in accounting journals

Argilés‐Bosch,

Ravenda,

Garcia‐Blandon

2023

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a sample of articles published in top accounting journals, we estimate a multivariate model and find empirical evidence of factors influencing delay in article acceptance. Acceptance delay is measured as the time from article submission to acceptance. We find that article length and journal workload are significantly and positively associated with acceptance delay, whereas the distance to historical aspirations in terms of journal impact factor, top corresponding authors and affiliations, as well as corresponding author affiliation with institutions in the USA or the Netherlands, are significantly and negatively associated with acceptance delay. We also find significant differences in acceptance delays related to specific journal procedures and editorial policies. Finally, we observe that acceptance delay increases over time.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical analysis of factors influencing delay in article acceptance in accounting journals

Argilés‐Bosch,

Ravenda,

Garcia‐Blandon

2023

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It was postulated that reviewers for high-quality journals considered their task as an investment in their own reputation. The effect of bias in peer review has been examined as well [12][13][14][15]. Authors suspected an influence of non-scientific factors on the decision-making process, such as institution of origin, country of origin, different conceptual approach, gender, personal reasons, competitiveness, religion, ethnicity, etc.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to investigate the opinion of authors on the overall quality and effectiveness of reviewers’ contributions to reviewed papers. We employed an on-line survey of thirteen journals which publish articles in the field of life, social or technological sciences. Responses received from 193 authors were analysed using a mixed-effects model in order to determine factors deemed the most important in the authors’ evaluation of the reviewers. Qualitative content analysis of the responses to open questions was performed as well. The mixed-effects model revealed that the authors’ assessment of the competence of referees strongly depended on the final editorial decision and that the speed of the review process was influential as well. In Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) analysis on seven questions detailing authors’ opinions, perception of review speed remained a significant predictor of the assessment. In addition, both the perceived competence and helpfulness of the reviewers significantly and positively affected the authors’ evaluation. New models were used to re-check the value of these two factors and it was confirmed that the assessment of the competence of reviewers strongly depended on the final editorial decision.

show abstract

“…A study by Fiala et al (2016) finds some evidence of shorter times to accept editorial board members' articles. 9…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Committees or Markets? An Exploratory Analysis of Best Paper Awards in Economics

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the general usefulness of citations as a sort of test of the value of one’s work in the marketplace of ideas, journals and publishers tend to use alternative bases of judgment, namely committees, in selecting candidates for the conferral of journals’ best paper awards. Given that recognition—sometimes in the form of compensation and on other occasions in the form of awards—in academe is geared toward incentivizing the production of impactful research and not some less desirable goal or outcome, it is important to understand the sensitivity in the outcomes of best paper award selection processes to the types of processes used. To that end, this study compares the selection of best paper awards for journals affiliated with several of the world’s top economic associations by committees to a counterfactual process that is based on citations to published studies. Our statistical exploration indicates that in most cases and for most awards, the most cited paper was not chosen. This requires further discussion as to the core characteristics that quantitatively represent the highest impact.

show abstract

Editorial Board Membership, Time to Accept, and the Effect on the Citation Counts of Journal Articles

Cited by 6 publications

References 17 publications

Empirical analysis of factors influencing delay in article acceptance in accounting journals

Empirical analysis of factors influencing delay in article acceptance in accounting journals

Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective

Committees or Markets? An Exploratory Analysis of Best Paper Awards in Economics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About