Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:09:14.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Editor Fatigue: Can Political Science Journals Increase Review Invitation-Acceptance Rates?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2021

Antonio Franceschet ,
Jack Lucas Open the ORCID record for Jack Lucas [Opens in a new window] ,
Brenda O’Neill ,
Elizabeth Pando  and
Melanee Thomas
Antonio Franceschet
Affiliation:
University of Calgary, Canada
Jack Lucas
Affiliation:
University of Calgary, Canada
Brenda O’Neill
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Canada
Elizabeth Pando
Affiliation:
University of Calgary, Canada
Melanee Thomas
Affiliation:
University of Calgary, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In many political science journals, fewer than half of the invitations sent to potential reviewers are accepted. These low acceptance rates increase workloads for editors and lengthen the review process for authors. This article reports analyses of reviewer invitation acceptance at the Canadian Journal of Political Science between 2017 and 2020. We first describe predictors of invitation acceptance using a coded dataset of almost 1,500 invitations. We find that reviewers who are personally familiar to editors, located in the same country as the journal, and more junior scholars were more likely to accept invitations. We then report the results of an experiment that tested the effect of three letters on invitation acceptance. We find that a short personal note from the editor to accompany the auto-generated system message may increase reviewer acceptance rates but highlighting the journal’s prestige or reviewer recognition does not. We conclude by discussing the practical implications of our findings for editorial-team design and the editorial process.

Type
Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , January 2022 , pp. 117 - 122
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Breuning, Marijke, Backstrom, Jeremy, Brannon, Jeremy, Gross, Benjamin Isaak, and Widmeier, Michael. 2015. “Reviewer Fatigue? Why Scholars Decline to Review Their Peers’ Work.” PS: Political Science & Politics 48 (4): 595–600. DOI:10.1017/S1049096515000827.Google Scholar
Cantor, Mauricio, and Gero, Shane. 2015. “The Missing Metric: Quantifying Contributions of Reviewers.” Royal Society Open Science 2:1–7. DOI:10.1098/rsos.140540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chetty, Raj, Saez, Emmanuel, and Sándor, László. 2014. “What Policies Increase Prosocial Behavior? An Experiment with Referees at the Journal of Public Economics .” Journal of Economic Perspectives 28 (3): 169–88. DOI:10.1257/jep.28.3.169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djupe, Paul A. 2015. “Peer Reviewing in Political Science: New Survey Results.” PS: Political Science & Politics 48 (2): 346–52.Google Scholar
Domínguez-Berjón, María Felícitas, Godoy, Pere, Ruano-Ravina, Alberto, et al. 2018. “Acceptance or Decline of Requests to Review Manuscripts: A Gender-Based Approach from a Public Health Journal.” Accountability in Research 25 (2): 94–108. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2018.1435280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Charles W., Arianne, Y. K. Albert, and Vines, Timothy H.. 2017. “Recruitment of Reviewers Is Becoming Harder at Some Journals: A Test of Influence of Reviewer Fatigue at Six Journals in Ecology and Evolution.” Research Integrity and Peer Review 2:1–6. DOI:10.1186/s4107-0027-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García, José A., Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa, and Fdez-Valdivia, Joaquín. 2013. “The Principal-Agent Problem in Peer Review.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (July): 1852–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Carlin, John. 2014. “Beyond Power Calculations: Assessing Type S (Sign) and Type M (Magnitude) Errors.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9 (6): 641–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ling, Fay. 2011. “Improving Peer Review: Increasing Reviewer Participation.” Learned Publishing 24:231–33. DOI:10.1087/20110311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, Yanping. 2013. “Experienced Journal Reviewers’ Perceptions of and Engagement with the Task of Reviewing: An Australian Perspective.” Higher Education Research and Development 32 (6): 946–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.806441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mrowinski, Maciej J., Fronczak, Agata, Fronczak, Piotr, Nedic, Olgica, and Ausloos, Marcel. 2016. “Review Time in Peer Review: Quantitative Analysis and Modeling of Editorial Workflows.” Scientometrics 107:271–86. DOI:10.1007/s11192-016-1871-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petchey, Owen L., Fox, Jeremy W., and Haddon, Lindsay. 2014. “Imbalance in Individual Researcher’s Peer Review Activities Quantified for Four British Ecological Society Journals, 2003–2010.” PLoS ONE 9 (3): 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092896.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tite, Leanne, and Schroter, Sara. 2006. “Why Do Peer Reviewers Decline to Review? A Survey.” Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 61:9–12. DOI:10.1136/jech.2006.049817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, Michael. 2015. “Why Do Peer Reviewers Decline to Review Manuscripts? A Study of Reviewer Invitation Responses.” Learned Publishing 29:5–7. DOI:10.1002/leap.1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaharie, Monica Aniela, and Osoian, Codruta Luminita. 2016. “Peer Review Motivation Frames: A Qualitative Approach.” European Management Journal 34:69–79. DOI:10.1016/j.emj.2015.12.004 0263–2373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaharie, Monica Aniela, and Seeber, Marco. 2018. “Are Non-Monetary Rewards Effective in Attracting Peer Reviewers? A Natural Experiment.” Scientometrics 117 (3): 1587–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2912-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: PDF

Franceschet et al. supplementary material

Franceschet et al. supplementary material

Download Franceschet et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 870.9 KB