Rejections and the Importance of First Response Times

Previous studies about the academic publishing process consider the publication delay as starting from the submission to the publishing journal. This ignores the potential delay caused by rejections received from previous journals. Knowing how many times papers are submitted prior to publication is essential for evaluating the importance of different publication delays and the refereeing process cost, and can improve our decisions about if and how the review process should be altered, decisions that affect the productivity of economists and other scholars. Using numerical analysis and evidence on acceptance rates of various journals, I estimate that most manuscripts are submitted between three and six times prior to publication. This implies that the first response time (the time between submission and first editorial decision) is much more important than other parts of the publication delay, suggesting important policy implications for editors and referees.

[1]  Gary W. Yohe,et al.  Current Publication Lags in Economics Journals , 1980 .

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

[3]  R. Lucas On the Mechanics of Economic Development , 1988 .

[4]  J. Gans,et al.  How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists , 1994 .

[5]  David N. Laband,et al.  Favoritism versus Search for Good Papers: Empirical Evidence Regarding the Behavior of Journal Editors , 1994, Journal of Political Economy.

[6]  D. Laband,et al.  The Relative Impacts of Economics Journals: 1970-1990 , 1994 .

[7]  George A. Akerlof The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism , 1970 .

[8]  Ofer H. Azar,et al.  The Review Process in Economics: Is it Too Fast? , 2005 .

[9]  Joshua S. Gans,et al.  Why Referees Are Not Paid (Enough) , 1998 .

[10]  R. Blank The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review , 1991 .

[11]  Kenneth J. Arrow,et al.  Rejected : leading economists ponder the publication process , 1995 .

[12]  D. Laband Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics?: Preliminary Evidence from Authors , 1990 .

[13]  David W. E. Cabell,et al.  Cabell's directory of publishing opportunities in economics and finance , 2004 .

[14]  Daniel S. Hamermesh,et al.  Facts and Myths about Refereeing , 1994 .

[15]  Ofer H. Azar Evolution of Social Norms with Heterogeneous Preferences: A General Model and an Application to the Academic Review Process , 2008 .

[16]  Glenn Ellison The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process , 2000 .