Selecting manuscripts for a high‐impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere

Abstract

All journals that use peer review have to deal with the following question: Does the peer review system fulfill its declared objective to select the "best" scientific work? We investigated the journal peer-review process at Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), one of the prime chemistry journals worldwide, and conducted a citation analysis for Communications that were accepted by the journal (n = 878) or rejected but published elsewhere (n = 959). The results of negative binomial-regression models show that holding all other model variables constant, being accepted by AC-IE increases the expected number of citations by up to 50%. A comparison of average citation counts (with 95% confidence intervals) of accepted and rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications with international scientific reference standards was undertaken. As reference standards, (a) mean citation counts for the journal set provided by Thomson Reuters corresponding to the field "chemistry" and (b) specific reference standards that refer to the subject areas of Chemical Abstracts were used. When compared to reference standards, the mean impact on chemical research is for the most part far above average not only for accepted Communications but also for rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications. However, average and below-average scientific impact is to be expected significantly less frequently for accepted Communications than for rejected Communications. All in all, the results of this study confirm that peer review at AC-IE is able to select the "best" scientific work with the highest impact on chemical research.

O processo de revisão por pares: uma revisão integrativa de literatura

“…Bormmann and Daniel (20) developed a study between 2000 and 2003, during which they investigated whether a certain journal's peer review process would be capable of selecting manuscripts that were worth publishing. For this purpose, they screened 1,021 manuscripts the journal under analysis had rejected to discover whether they had been published in other journals.…”

Seasonal bias in editorial decisions? A study using data from chemistry

“…Research in the literature databases Web of Science (Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia, PA, USA) and CA revealed that 959 (94%) of the 1,021 rejected manuscripts were later published in other journals in a more or less revised form. 4,5,10,11 In this study we included all manuscripts that were submitted to AC-IE in the year 2000 (date of the original submission; n = 1,782; 117 manuscripts were submitted in 1999). Table 1 shows the distribution of the manuscript submissions over the months of the year.…”

Unpublishable research: examining and organizing the ‘file drawer’

“…There is of course a substantial body of literature on peer reviewing and publication bias, [10][11][12][13] fraud, reproducibility, and scientifi c misconduct. [14][15][16] It has been well documented that negative results are diffi cult to publish 17 and that negative results studies tend to receive fewer citations than other articles.…”