Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Study of some Editor-in-Chief decision schemes|
|Abstract:||It is difficult for editors-in-chief (EIC) of journals to make a final decision on acceptance or rejection of submitted articles when referee reports arrive too late. This paper studies the probability that an EIC makes different decisions (on acceptance or rejection) of submitted papers, dependent on the order in which referee reports arrive and where the EIC makes a decision before a third (late) referee report arrives. We study two decision rules. One rule, which we define as the “50-50” rule, lets the EIC decide “accept” in 50% of the cases and decide “reject” in 50% of the cases when the first two referees disagree. The other rule, called by Bornmann and Daniel the “clear-cut” rule lets the EIC decide “reject” in all cases where the first two referees disagree. Dependent on the order in which the referee reports arrive, we prove that in the “50- 50” rule, the EIC makes different conclusions in 37.5% of the cases. In the “clear-cut” rule, the EIC makes different conclusions in 25% of the cases. Both models are based on an equal chance for acceptance or rejection advise of the referees. The model is then extended to one where the chance for agreement between two referees is higher than the chance for disagreement. This paper is dedicated to Professor Eugene Garfield (Ph.D.) on the occasion of his 85<sup>th</sup> birthday. The paper focuses on some challenges of Editors-in-Chief. Professor Eugene Garfield is founding Editor-in-Chief of the prestigious journal “The Scientist” and he endorsed the foundation in 2007 of the new journal “Journal of Informetrics” (founded by this author).|
|ISSN:||0975-2404 (Online); 0972-5423 (Print)|
|Appears in Collections:||ALIS Vol.57(3) [September 2010]|
Items in NOPR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.