Correlations between submission and acceptance of papers in peer review journals
arXiv:1910.05717 · doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03026-x
Abstract
This paper provides a comparative study about seasonal influence on editorial decisions for papers submitted to two peer review journals. We distinguish a specialized one, the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society (JSCS) and an interdisciplinary one, Entropy. Dates of electronic submission for about 600 papers to JSCS and 2500 to Entropy have been recorded over 3 recent years. Time series of either accepted or rejected papers are subsequently analyzed. We take either editors or authors view points into account, thereby considering magnitudes and probabilities. In this sample, it is found that there are distinguishable peaks and dips in the time series, demonstrating preferred months for the submission of papers. It is also found that papers are more likely accepted if they are submitted during a few specific months, - these depending on the journal. The probability of having a rejected paper also appears to be seasonally biased. In view of clarifying reports with contradictory findings, we discuss previously proposed conjectures for such effects, like holiday effects and the desk rejection by editors. We conclude that, in this sample, the type of journal, specialized or multidisciplinary, seems to be the drastic criterion for distinguishing the outcomes rates.
arXiv comment30 pages, 16 references, 11 Tables, 6 figures;version before edited galley proofs
References in corpus (6)
- Artificial intelligence in peer review: How can evolutionary computation support journal editors?
- Review times in peer review: quantitative analysis of editorial workflows
- Day of the week effect in paper submission/acceptance/rejection to/in/by peer review journals
- Day of the week submission effect for accepted papers in Physica A, PLOS ONE, Nature and Cell
- Day of the week effect in paper submission/acceptance/rejection to/in/by peer review journals. II. An ARCH econometric-like modeling
- Efficiency in managing peer-review of scientific manuscripts -- editors' perspective