Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:10:45.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reasons for Journal Rejection: An Analysis of 600 Manuscripts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2022

Charles M. Bonjean  and
Jan Hullum
Charles M. Bonjean
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Austin
Jan Hullum
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Austin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The rejection of manuscripts by journals is clearly the norm in the social sciences. For example, in 1976 about 700 manuscripts were submitted to the American Economic Review and more than 500 were rejected; the American Sociological Review rejected more than 500 of about 600 submitted; and of the 525 manuscripts reviewed by the American Political Science Review, almost 500 were rejected. To be sure, these are the top journals in their disciplines; but other respectable journals display the same pattern for that year: the Southern Economic Journal turned down well over 400 of the 500 manuscripts received; the Social Science Quarterly rejected about 425 of the almost 500 received; and the American Journal of Political Science received about 320 and rejected 270. That a perusal of the editorial reports of other journals would yield comparable findings is documented by a survey of 72 economics journals which collectively reported a rejection rate of 77 percent.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , Fall 1978 , pp. 480 - 483
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1978

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.)

Footnotes

*

Revision of a paper presented at the 1978 meetings of the Southwestern Social Science Association, Houston, Texas, April 13, 1978.

References

1 Zuckerman, Harriet and Merton, Robert K., “Patterns of Evaluation in Science: Institutionalization, Structure and the Functions of the Referee System,” Minerva, 9 (January, 1971), 66–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 AER data may be found in Borts, George H., “Report of the Managing Editor,” American Economic Review, 67 (1977), 450–454.Google Scholar ASR data are from Zelditch, Morris Jr., “Report of the Editor of the American Sociological Review,” ASA Footnotes, 5 (1977), 8.Google Scholar Because this report covered an 18-month period, data were extrapolated for a 12-month period so that they would be comparable with the other journals. APSR data were obtained from a personal communication from Kendall S. Stanley (May 11, 1977).

3 These data are from Charles M. Bonjean, “1976 SSQ Editor's Report,” presented at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Social Science Association, Dallas, Texas, March 30, 1977 and from personal communications from W. Phillips Shively (April 5, 1977) and Vincent Tarascio (April 1, 1977).

4 Adams, Jack E., “The Challenge and Response of Economics Journal Policies: A Comparative Survey,” Collegiate News and Views, 30 (1977), 25–27.Google Scholar The prestige of the journals examined varies considerably. The rejection rate is higher, of course, for the more prestigious journals.

5 For example, see Glenn, Norval D., “American Sociologists' Evaluation of Sixty-three Journals,” The American Sociologist, 6 (November, 1971), 298–303.Google Scholar Also see Giles, Micheal W. and Wright, Gerald C. Jr., “Political Scientists' Evaluation of Sixty-three Journals,” PS: Political Science & Politics, 7 (Summer, 1975), 254–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Also see Harriet Zuckerman and Robert K. Merton, op. cit.

7 See, for example, Crane, Diana, “The Gatekeepers of Science: Some Factors Affecting the Selection of Articles for Scientific Journals,” The American Sociologist, 2 (November, 1967), 195–201.Google Scholar

8 Smigel, Erwin O. and Ross, H. Laurence, “Factors in the Editorial Decision,” The American Sociologist, 5 (February, 1970), 19–21.Google Scholar

9 Because of preferences for interdisciplinary and/or policy related manuscripts, those articles published in SSQ are not entirely representative of those found in the major political science journals. On the other hand, we doubt that manuscripts submitted to SSQ by political scientists differ greatly from those submitted to the other journals of the regional political science associations (American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, Polity and the Western Political Quarterly). We have seen revisions of our rejections in the pages of all these journals and we know we have published revisions of some of their rejections. That we considered many manuscripts submitted to these journals has been verified directly by correspondence with authors, the selection of reviewers who had already read the paper for these journals and the fact that since 1976 the majority of papers by political scientists submitted to SSQ were in APSR format rather than the very different reference format that SSQ adopted at that time.

10 This includes almost all of the rejected manuscripts submitted by members of these disciplines. Because there were fewer submissions by economists, the 1976 data include the latest 1975 rejections.

11 Not all manuscripts received three evaluations since it is SSQ policy to use only the first two received, if both recommend rejection for basically the same reasons. In these cases, the third reviewer is notified that his/her review is not necessary. This procedure assures the author of a more punctual decision than would have been the case had the editor waited for the third review. The mean number of reviewers analyzed was 2.6.

12 Adams, op. cit.

13 One criterion used in the selection of SSQ review panels is to include two reviewers representing the same discipline as the senior author of a manuscript. Every effort is made to select a third reviewer from a different discipline, but with similar substantive interests.

14 The majority, however, were submitted for review. When in doubt, for example, about a manuscript's interdisciplinary appeal, the editor and associate editor relied on the reviewers' evaluations on this criterion.

15 Smigel and Ross, loc. cit.

16 For example, during the last decade SSQ has published policy statements indicating a preference for short to medium length manuscripts. Only in 1976, after a considerable increase in the rate of submissions and the development of a larger backlog of accepted manuscripts, did this preference become a policy. Since then manuscripts longer than 30 pages have been returned to authors without benefit of the review process, but with a letter indicating a willingness to consider a tighter version of the manuscript. It is likely that APSR's recent policy setting an upper limit of 50 pages for manuscripts was adopted for the same reasons.

17 Vandermeulen, Alice, “A Remission from Baumol's Disease: Ways to Publish More Articles,” Southern Economic Journal, 35 (October, 1968), 189–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar