Sequential order as an extraneous factor in editorial decision

Orazbayev, Sultan (2017): Sequential order as an extraneous factor in editorial decision.

Abstract

Academic journal editors reject a significant portion of first submissions without sending them out for peer review. This decision, desk rejection, is made to reduce the workload on associate editors and referees, to give the submitting author a head start on revision or pursuit of an alternative venue, as well as to achieve quicker turnaround time for the journal. Desk rejection is a judgement based on the manuscript's perceived quality, impact and fit with the journal's scope. Could extraneous factors, which are unrelated to the content of a manuscript, affect the editorial decision? This paper examines whether the sequential order in which manuscripts are submitted to a large academic journal affects the editorial decision. Becoming the first submission on the editor's list of manuscripts to review increases the probability of a desk rejection by up to 7% without any effect on the likelihood of a rejection after peer review.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: desk rejection; sequential order effect; decision fatigue; peer review.
• Subjects: A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics > A19 - Other; D - Microeconomics > D0 - General > D03 - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D89 - Other; J - Labor and Demographic Economics > J0 - General > J01 - Labor Economics: General

References

Berger, Jonah (2016). “Does Presentation Order Impact Choice After Delay?” Topics in cognitive science 8, pp. 670–684. doi: 10.1111/tops.12205.

Danziger, Shai, Jonathan Levav, and Liora Avnaim-Pesso (2011). “Extraneous factors in judicial decisions”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (17), pp. 6889–6892. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1018033108.

Dietrich, JP (2008). “Disentangling visibility and self-promotion bias in the arxiv: astro-ph positional citation effect”. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 120 (869), p. 801.

Feenberg, Daniel R, Ina Ganguli, Patrick Gaule, and Jonathan Gruber (2017). “It’s Good to be First: Order Bias in Reading and Citing NBER Working Papers”. Review of Economics and Statistics 99 (1), pp. 32–39.

Gans, Joshua S and George B Shepherd (1994). “How are the mighty fallen: Re- jected classic articles by leading economists”. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (1), pp. 165–179.

Hamermesh, Daniel S. (2017). “Citations in Economics: Measurement, Uses and Impacts”. Journal of Economic Literature.

Johnston, S Claiborne, Daniel H Lowenstein, Donna M Ferriero, Robert O Messing, Jorge R Oksenberg, Stephen L Hauser, and Adam F Stewart (2007). “Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial”. Annals of neurology 61 (4).

Kwan, James, Libby Stein, Sean Delshad, Sunny Johl, Hannah Park, Bibiana Martinez, Lindsey Topp, and Brennan MR Spiegel (2016). “Does “Decision Fatigue” Impact Manuscript Acceptance? An Analysis of Editorial Decisions by the American Journal of Gastroenterology”. The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

McAfee, R Preston (2010). “Edifying editing”. The American Economist 55 (1), pp. 1–8.

Shugan, Steven M. (2007). “The Editor’s Secrets”. Marketing Science 26 (5), pp. 589–595.

Stewart, Adam F, Donna M Ferriero, S Andrew Josephson, Daniel H Lowenstein, Robert O Messing, Jorge R Oksenberg, S Claiborne Johnston, and Stephen L Hauser (2012). “Fighting decision fatigue”. Annals of neurology 71 (1), A5–A15.