Peer Review and Research Impact

被引:0
|
作者
Girish Mallapragada
Nandini Lahiri
Atul Nerkar
机构
[1] Indiana University,Department of Marketing, Kelley School of Business
[2] Temple University,Fox School of Business
[3] The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,Department of Strategy and Entrepreneurship, Kenan
关键词
Peer review process; Research impact; Negative binomial models;
D O I
10.1007/s40547-015-0060-1
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
In academia, citations received by articles are a critical metric for measuring research impact. An important aspect of publishing in academia is the ability of the authors to navigate the review process, and despite its critical role, very little is known about how the review process may impact the research impact of an article. We propose that characteristics of the review process, namely, number of revisions and time with authors during review, will influence the article’s research impact, post-publication. We also explore the moderating role of the authors’ social status on the relationship between the review process and the article’s success. We use a unique data set of 434 articles published in Marketing Science to test our propositions. After controlling for a host of factors, we find broad support for our propositions. We develop critical insights for researchers and academic administrators based on our findings.
引用
收藏
页码:29 / 41
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Peer review and impact statements vital to UK research
    David Delpy
    [J]. Nature, 2009, 460 : 456 - 456
  • [2] Peer review and impact statements vital to UK research
    Delpy, David
    [J]. NATURE, 2009, 460 (7254) : 456 - 456
  • [3] Collective Impact: A Review of the Peer-reviewed Research
    Ennis, Gretchen
    Tofa, Matalena
    [J]. AUSTRALIAN SOCIAL WORK, 2020, 73 (01) : 32 - 47
  • [4] ASSESSING RESEARCH IMPACT - FEDERAL PEER-REVIEW PRACTICES
    KOSTOFF, RN
    [J]. EVALUATION REVIEW, 1994, 18 (01) : 31 - 40
  • [5] Impact, orthodoxy and peer review
    Ritter, J. M.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2011, 72 (03) : 367 - 368
  • [7] Looking for the impact of peer review: does count of funding acknowledgements really predict research impact?
    John Rigby
    [J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 94 : 57 - 73
  • [8] The Validation of Peer Review through Research Impact Measures and the Implications for Funding Strategies
    Gallo, Stephen A.
    Carpenter, Afton S.
    Irwin, David
    McPartland, Caitlin D.
    Travis, Joseph
    Reynders, Sofie
    Thompson, Lisa A.
    Glisson, Scott R.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2014, 9 (09):
  • [9] Research funding - Peer review at NIH
    Scarpa, T
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2006, 311 (5757) : 41 - 41
  • [10] PROMOTING RESEARCH INTO PEER-REVIEW
    SMITH, R
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1994, 309 (6948): : 143 - 144