How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication

被引:247
作者
Starbuck, WH [1 ]
机构
[1] NYU, Stern Sch Business, Dept Management, New York, NY 10012 USA
关键词
citations; journals; knowledge peer review; personnel evaluation; research reviewing;
D O I
10.1287/orsc.1040.0107
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
Articles in high-prestige journals receive more citations and more applause than articles in less-prestigious journals, but how much more do these articles contribute to knowledge? This article uses a statistical theory of review processes to draw inferences about differences value between articles in more-prestigious versus less-prestigious journals. This analysis indicates that there is much overlap in articles in different prestige strata. Indeed, theory implies that about half of the articles published are not among the best ones submitted to those journals, and some of the manuscripts that belong in the highest-value 20% have the misfortune to elicit rejections from as many as five journals. Some social science departments and business schools strongly emphasize publication in prestigious journals. Although one can draw inferences about an author's average manuscript from the percentage in top-tier journals, the confidence limits for such inferences are wide. A focus on prestigious journals may benefit the most prestigious departments or schools but add randomness to the decisions of departments or schools that are not at the very top. Such a focus may also impede the development of knowledge when mediocre research receives the endorsement of high visibility.
引用
收藏
页码:180 / 200
页数:21
相关论文
共 58 条
[1]  
Amin M., 2000, PERSPECTIVES PUBLISH
[2]  
[Anonymous], CHANCE NEW DIRECTION
[3]   Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation [J].
Armstrong J.S. .
Science and Engineering Ethics, 1997, 3 (1) :63-84
[4]   RELIABILITY, FAIRNESS, OBJECTIVITY, AND OTHER INAPPROPRIATE GOALS IN PEER-REVIEW [J].
BAILAR, JC .
BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES, 1991, 14 (01) :137-137
[5]  
Baumeister R.E., 1990, DIALOGUE, V5, P16
[6]   The manuscript review process - The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors [J].
Bedeian, AG .
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY, 2003, 12 (04) :331-338
[7]   Improving the journal review process: The question of ghostwriting [J].
Bedeian, AG .
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, 1996, 51 (11) :1189-1189
[8]   Thoughts on the making and remaking of the management discipline [J].
Bedeian, AG .
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY, 1996, 5 (04) :311-318
[9]   Peer Review and the Social Construction of Knowledge in the Management Discipline [J].
Bedeian, Arthur G. .
ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT LEARNING & EDUCATION, 2004, 3 (02) :198-216
[10]   IMPROVING MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION PROCEDURES [J].
BOWEN, DD ;
PERLOFF, R ;
JACOBY, J .
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, 1972, 27 (03) :221-&