Page 60 - Becoming Metric Wise

50 Becoming Metric-Wise

It is well-known that manuscripts that are rejected by one journal
(through a peer review process) are often later accepted by another jour-
nal (again through a peer review process). This phenomenon is called
bouncebackability by Cronin (2012). So it seems that there are no general
criteria for acceptance or rejection. Acceptance and rejection may depend
on individual perceptions (of reviewers and editors) and on local condi-
tions, such as a shortage or abundance of manuscripts. In a review on the
predictive validity of peer review, Bornmann (2010) concludes that edito-
rial decisions (acceptance or rejection) reflect a rather high degree of
predictive validity, if citation counts are employed as validity criteria.
As such, peer review acts as a quality filter and as an instrument for the
self-regulation of science.
In this context one may raise the question: What is quality? According
to ISO 8402 quality is defined as the totality of features and characteristics
of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied
needs. We will not try to define research quality, but just state that it is
related, among other aspects, to research questions, experiments, data
analysis, logic, and ethics.

3.1.8 Delays

The publication-citation system has some in-built delays. The most
important ones are review(er) delay, publication delay, and citation delay.

Review(er) Delay
This is the delay between submission and receiving the final accept-reject
decision. Although some delays may be due to the electronic system itself,
these are negligible with respect to the delays occurring because the edi-
tor has to find peers, and most importantly, the delay due to reviewers.
As explained above, one sometimes needs an extra referee. Yet, as most
manuscripts need minor or major revision, authors are also responsible
for a delay of weeks and sometimes months. Of course, this delay is not
always entirely due to the authors. If reviewers have required additional
data collection and analysis this may even take another year. When a
manuscript is revised and resubmitted the whole review process starts all
over again. Sometimes another revision is deemed necessary.
Although delays due to the reviewing process may take quite some
time (from months to more than a year), Rousseau and Rousseau (2012)
found that researchers are willing to wait more than a year to publish