@article{DuBroy_2021, title={Manuscripts Published in a Specific Chemistry Journal Must Be Both Important and Suitable According to Peer Reviewers}, volume={16}, url={https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/29936}, DOI={10.18438/eblip29936}, abstractNote={<p><strong>A Review of:</strong></p> <p>Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). The manuscript reviewing process: empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review. <em>Library & Information Science Research, 32</em>(1), 5-12. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2009.07.010">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2009.07.010</a></p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p><strong>Objective </strong>– To examine the peer review process at a single journal.</p> <p><strong>Design </strong>– Analysis of business records.</p> <p><strong>Setting </strong>– Peer review system of a single journal.</p> <p><strong>Subjects </strong>– Documents produced when reviewing manuscripts submitted for publication to journal <em>Angewandte Chemie International Edition</em> and reviewed in the year 2000.</p> <p><strong>Methods</strong> – Peer review process information was extracted from the journal’s archives. Various aspects, such as review sequences and decision rules, were analysed and summarised in tables.</p> <p><strong>Main results </strong>– Of the 1899 manuscripts reviewed in the year 2000, 46% (n = 878) were accepted for publication and 54% (n = 1021) were rejected. On average, a manuscript received 2.6 reviews before an editor made a publication decision. Just over half (n = 962, approx. 51%) of manuscripts were subject to two review steps. A small number of manuscripts (n = 104, approx. 5.5%) were subject to 5, 6 or 7 review steps. The more steps an article was subject to, the greater likelihood it would be accepted. Editors “generally follow a so-called clear-cut rule” (p.11) in which manuscripts accepted for publication must be considered both important and suitable for publication by at least two peer reviewers.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion </strong>– The results “give a sense of commitment [and care] ...probably typical of most prestigious journals” (p.11).</p>}, number={2}, journal={Evidence Based Library and Information Practice}, author={DuBroy, Michelle}, year={2021}, month={Jun.}, pages={156–157} }