REVIEW PROCESS AND THE FATES OF MANUSCRIPTS SUBMITTED TO AMJ
REVIEW PROCESS AND THE FATES OF MANUSCRIPTS SUBMITTED TO AMJ
复制标题
DOI：
10.5465/256856
复制
发表时间：
1995-10-01
影响因子：
10.5
通讯作者：
FOX, WB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
BEYER, JM;CHANOVE, RG;FOX, WB
从四个角度对科学期刊的审查过程进行了实证研究AMJ审查过程从1984年到1987年。结果表明，适度的支持来自累积优势和特殊主义的观点和更实质性的支持来自守门和评论风格的观点的假设。测试一个新的视角，结合守门和教练风格的预测产生了最强的结果。实际上，AMJ的审查过程选择性地放大了审稿人和编辑认为在提交的手稿中可取的内容。
Four perspectives on the review processes of scientific journals were employed heuristically to examine the AMJ review process from 1984 through 1987. Results indicated modest support for hypotheses derived from accumulative advantage and particularism perspectives and more substantial support for hypotheses derived from gatekeeping and reviewer style perspectives. Testing a new perspective that combined predictors of gatekeeping and of coaching styles yielded the strongest results. In effect, the AMJ review process selectively amplified what reviewers and editors considered desirable in submitted manuscripts.