Journal acceptance rates: A cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measures

Sugimoto, Cassidy R.; Larivière, Vincent; Ni, Chong; Cronin, Blaise

doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.007

Cited by 86 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Bibliometric studies have found that the journal impact factor is a proxy of a journal's international status. For instance, Sugimoto et al (2013) reported that acceptance rates of manuscripts submitted to scientific journals negatively correlate with the journals' impact factors, suggesting that journals with rigorous referee systems tend to generate higher impact than others.…”

Section: Assessment Purpose and Objectives; The Role Of The Policy Comentioning

confidence: 99%

Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact

Moed

Halevi

2015

Asso for Info Science & Tech

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article introduces the Multidimensional Research Assessment Matrix of scientific output. Its base notion holds that the choice of metrics to be applied in a research assessment process depends on the unit of assessment, the research dimension to be assessed, and the purposes and policy context of the assessment. An indicator may by highly useful within one assessment process, but less so in another. For instance, publication counts are useful tools to help discriminate between those staff members who are research active, and those who are not, but are of little value if active scientists are to be compared with one another according to their research performance. This paper gives a systematic account of the potential usefulness and limitations of a set of 10 important metrics, including altmetrics, applied at the level of individual articles, individual researchers, research groups, and institutions. It presents a typology of research impact dimensions and indicates which metrics are the most appropriate to measure each dimension. It introduces the concept of a “meta‐analysis” of the units under assessment in which metrics are not used as tools to evaluate individual units, but to reach policy inferences regarding the objectives and general setup of an assessment process.

show abstract

Section: Assessment Purpose and Objectives; The Role Of The Policy Comentioning

confidence: 99%

Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact

Moed

Halevi

2015

Asso for Info Science & Tech

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Björk (Björk, 2015) has reported acceptance rates of between 51 and 69% for megajournals. In one of the few more systematic studies of acceptance rates across disciplines, Sugimota et al (Sugimoto, Lariviére, Ni, & Cronin, 2013) found averages ranging between 30 and 46% (depending on discipline) for journals overall, and between 37 and 57% for OA journals. Top journals in most fields tend to have acceptance rates below 20%, and for instance, Nature has reported 7% (Nature, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer review in megajournals compared with traditional scholarly journals: Does it make a difference?

Björk

Catani

2016

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A megajournal is an open‐access journal that publishes any manuscript that presents scientifically trustworthy empirical results, without asking about the potential scientific contribution prior to publication. Megajournals have rapidly increased their output and are currently publishing around 50,000 articles per year. We report on a small pilot study in which we looked at the citation distributions for articles in megajournals compared with journals with traditional peer review, which also evaluate articles for contribution and novelty. We found that elite journals with very low acceptance rates have far fewer articles with no or few citations, but that the long tail of articles with two citations or less was actually bigger in a sample of selective traditional journals in comparison with megajournals. This indicates the need for more systematic studies, because the results raise many questions as to how efficiently the current peer review system in reality fulfils its filtering function.

show abstract

“…We believe this is the definition of Journal Acceptance Rates that authors interact with and will benefit from, so that's why it is Type I that we use throughout this report. acceptance rates remain linked to the idea of quality to some extent (Sugimoto, Larivière, Ni et al, 2013;Metrics Toolkit). It has also been suggested that rejection rates of "up to 30% are justifiable to ensure only sound research is published" (Frontiers, 2015).…”

Section: The Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accept Me, Accept Me Not: What Do Journal Acceptance Rates Really Mean? [ICSR Perspectives]

Herbert

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Journal acceptance rates: A cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measures

Cited by 86 publications

References 26 publications

Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact

Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact

Peer review in megajournals compared with traditional scholarly journals: Does it make a difference?

Accept Me, Accept Me Not: What Do Journal Acceptance Rates Really Mean? [ICSR Perspectives]

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About