Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T19:55:22.735Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Journal response time: A case for multiple submission

Review products

Commentary on Domenic V.Cicchetti The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. BBS 14:119–186.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2011

Albert Somit  and
Steven A. Peterson
Albert Somit
Affiliation:
School of Law, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901 and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.
Steven A. Peterson
Affiliation:
Division of Social Sciences, Alfred University, Alfred, NY 14802. fpeterson@blgvax.alfred.ed
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Peer review poses many challenges for journals. A downside of high rejection rates and sometimes delayed responses in publication decision by journals is a long time period between original submission of a manuscript and its ultimate acceptance and publication. One way of accelerating the process which might be worth considering is multiple submission. This commentary addresses that issue.

Information

Type
Continuing Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 19 , Special Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 533 - 534
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Cicchetti, D. V. (1991a) The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:119–35. [DVC, AS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. (1991b) Reflections from the peer review mirror. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:167–86. [DVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. (1993) The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: “It's like déjà vu all over again.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16:401–03. [DVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. & Sparrow, S. S. (1981) Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: Applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 86:127–37. [DVC]Google ScholarPubMed
Crandall, R. (1991) What should be done to improve reviewing? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:143. [DVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, H. D. (1993) An evaluation of the peer review process at Angewandte Chemie. Angewandte Chemistry, International Edition, English 32:234. [DVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargens, L. L. (1988) Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review 53:139–51. [DVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargens, L. L. (1991) Referee agreement in context. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:150–1. [DVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, H. M. (1976) Letter to the editor. American Sociologist 11:178–79. [DVC]Google Scholar
Lindsey, D. (1978) The scientific publication system in social science. Jossey-Bass. [DVC]Google Scholar
Lock, S. (1985) A difficult balance: Editorial peer review in medicine. ISI Press. [DVC]Google Scholar
Lock., S. P. (1991) Should the blinded lead the blinded? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:156–7. [DVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, M. J. (1991) Justice, efficiency and epistemology in the peer review of scientific manuscripts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:157. [DVC]Google Scholar
Peters, D. P. and Ceci., S. J. (1982) Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:187–255. [AS]Google Scholar
Powell, G. D. Jr. (1993) Report of the managing editor of the American Political Science Review, 1992–1993, PS 26:841–846. [AS]Google Scholar