Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (2):535-539 (2015)

High percentages of submitted papers are rejected at editorial levels without offering a second chance to authors by sending their papers for further peer-reviews. In most cases, the rejections are typical quick answers without helpful argumentations related to the content of the rejected material. More surprisingly, some journals vaunt their high rejection rates as a “mark of prestige”!However, journals that reject high percentages of submitted papers have built their prominent positions based on a flawed measure, the impact factor, and from a long and favorable historical context. Their shareholders may think that they are allowed to have a large margin of rejection rates without affecting their sponsorship or funding sources thanks to an extended anchorage since tens, or in some cases hundreds, of years compared to unknown or new journals that struggle to pave a way in the scientific publication world. Historical anchorage of some journals also makes it unfair to compare old and new ..
Keywords manuscript submission  blind peer review  double blind review  peer review  publication bias  anonymous submission  paper submission  article submission
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11948-014-9547-7
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Disaster of the Impact Factor.Khaled Moustafa - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (1):139-142.
Blind Manuscript Submission to Reduce Rejection Bias?Khaled Moustafa - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (2):535-539.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Blind Manuscript Submission to Reduce Rejection Bias?Khaled Moustafa - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (2):535-539.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Journal Response Time: A Case for Multiple Submission.Albert Somit & Steven A. Peterson - 1996 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19 (3):533-534.
Does the Cover Letter Really Matter?Khaled Moustafa - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (4):839-841.
Manuscript Submission.Roy MacLeod - 2002 - Minerva 40:107-113.
Manuscript Submission.Steven French - 2004 - Metascience 13:135-138.
Manuscript Submission.Eric Scerri - 1999 - Foundations of Chemistry 1:99-106.
Manuscript Submission.Laura B. DeLind - 2005 - Agriculture and Human Values 22:119-122.
Manuscript Submission.WordPerfect Word - 2006 - Journal of Indian Philosophy 34:161-168.
Manuscript Submission.Irene Heim & Angelika Kratzer - 2004 - Natural Language Semantics 12:129-134.
Self-Bias, Time-Bias, and the Metaphysics of Self and Time.Caspar Hare - 2007 - Journal of Philosophy 104 (7):350-373.
Submission guidelines.Submission Guidelines - 2014 - Archai: Revista de Estudos Sobre as Origens Do Pensamento Ocidental 12:205-207.
Authorship and Manuscript Reviewing: The Risk of Bias.Lois DeBakey - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):208-209.


Added to PP index

Total views
328 ( #32,415 of 2,519,874 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
16 ( #50,478 of 2,519,874 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes