AW: [SIGMETRICS] New Papers

[Bornmann, Lutz]

Dear Phil,

I guess your proposal is to include into the regression analysis the number
of "friends" and "enemies" for every submitted manuscript. This could be an
approximation method for an answer to the research question, but this method
is not very exact.

Best,

Lutz

---------------------------------------

Dr. Dr. habil. Lutz Bornmann
Max Planck Society
Office of Research Analysis and Foresight
Hofgartenstr. 8
80539 Munich
Tel.: 089/2108-1265
Email: bornmann at gv.mpg.de
ResearcherID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-3926-2008 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics 
>[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Philip Davis
>Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 10:15 PM
>To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] AW: [SIGMETRICS] New Papers
>
>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
>Dear Lutz,
>One could test the likelihood that the listing of "friends" or 
>"enemies" 
>increases and/or reduces the chances of a manuscript being accepted.  
>I'm thinking of a logistic regression with "acceptance" being 
>the outcome.
>This, obviously, is a different kind of analysis that does not involve 
>citations, but requires review data from the publisher.
>
>Best,
>Phil
>
>Bornmann, Lutz wrote:
>> Dear Phil,
>>  
>> this would be interesting to test however difficult to 
>investigate. Normally,
>> the editors do not select author-excluded reviewers. Thus, 
>one does not have
>> the ratings of these reviewers.
>>  
>> Best,
>>  
>> Lutz
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics im Auftrag von 
>Philip Davis
>> Gesendet: Mo 18.10.2010 19:53
>> An: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
>> Betreff: Re: [SIGMETRICS] New Papers
>>
>>
>>
>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>>
>> Bornmann,
>> Would avoiding "enemies" (i.e. competitors) provide the same 
>result as
>> preferentially selecting "friends"?  Many journals allow 
>authors to list
>> preferential reviewers as well as those they would rather avoid
>> evaluating their work.
>>
>> --Phil Davis
>>
>>   
>