Data Envelopment Analysis of OR/MS journals

SummaryThis paper presents the results of a Data Envelopment Analysis of Operations Research/ Management Science journals on two questions: the duration of the refereeing/publication process and the relation between the length of the articles published and their impact. The second question uses data publicly available through the ISI Journal Citation Reports database and through the journals contents while for the first question data had to be gathered from the journal editors through an e-mail survey. The analysis gives cues about the amount each journal should aim to reduce their lead times, setting efficiency targets both on the average time from submission to first editorial decision and on the time from final editorial decision to publication. Similarly, for each journal, efficiency targets for the average article length are obtained. Our promoting of refereeing efficiency and paper length efficiency assumes that no loss of quality in the peer review process or in the knowledge transmission process needs to happen.

[1]  Erwin J. Warkentin.  Consumer Issues and the Scholarly Journal , 1997 .

[2]  Janet H. Fisher,et al.  Comparing Electronic Journals to Print Journals: Are There Savings?. , 1997 .

[3]  James R Wilson,et al.  Responsible authorship and peer review , 2002, Science and engineering ethics.

[4]  Tibor Braun,et al.  Publication Speed in Analytical Chemistry Journals , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[5]  Fytton Rowland,et al.  The peer‐review process , 2002, Learn. Publ..

[6]  M. Callaham,et al.  Author perception of peer review: impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction. , 2002, JAMA.

[7]  Henry H. Barschall.  Cost‐Effectiveness of Physics Journals , 1988 .

[8]  Cláudia S. Sarrico,et al.  Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software , 2001, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[9]  Rob Kling,et al.  The Internet and the Velocity of Scholarly Journal Publishing , 2002 .

[10]  Linda Beebe,et al.  Reprint: Digital Workflow: Managing the Process Electronically , 2000 .

[11]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[12]  William W. Cooper,et al.  MODELS AND MEASURES FOR EFFICIENCY DOMINANCE IN DEA Part I: Additive Models and MED Measures * , 1996 .

[13]  Carol Tenopir,et al.  Economic Cost Models of Scientific Scholarly Journals , 1998 .

[14]  Gerry McKiernan.  Web-Based Journal Manuscript Management and Peer-Review Software and Systems , 2002 .

[15]  Peter Roberts.  Scholarly Publishing, Peer Review and the Internet , 1999, First Monday.

[16]  Gary Taubes.  Speed of Publication — Stuck in First Gear , 1996, Science.

[17]  Anthony Hall.  Worldwide Rankings of Research Activity in Econometrics: An Update: 1980–1988 , 1990 .

[18]  Stevan Harnad,et al.  Free at Last: The Future of Peer-Reviewed Journals , 1999, D Lib Mag..

[19]  W. Cooper,et al.  Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software , 1999 .

[20]  Pravin K. Trivedi.  An Analysis of Publication Lags in Econometrics , 1993 .

[21]  Stevan Harnad,et al.  The invisible hand of peer review , 1998 .

[22]  Anthony Hall,et al.  Worldwide Rankings of Research Activity in Econometrics: 1980–1985 , 1987, Econometric Theory.

[23]  Rob Kling,et al.  Electronic journals, the Internet, and scholarly communication , 2005, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[24]  Dee Wood.  Online peer review? , 1998, Learn. Publ..

[25]  Dee Wood,et al.  Online peer review: perceptions in the biological sciences , 2000, Learn. Publ..