The Hawthorne effect in journal peer review

Lutz Bornmann ()

Scientometrics, 2012, vol. 91, issue 3, No 13, 857-862

Abstract: Abstract Purpose—this paper aims to look at the Hawthorne effect in editorial peer review. Design/methodology/approach—discusses the quality evaluation of refereed scholarly journals. Findings—a key finding of this research was that in the peer review process of one and the same manuscript, reviewers or editors, respectively, arrive at different judgments. This phenomenon is named as “Hawthorne effect” because the different judgements are dependent on the specific conditions under which the peer review process at the individual journals takes place. Originality/value—provides a discussion on the quality evaluation of scholarly journals.

Keywords: Editorial peer review; Manuscript rejection; Hawthorne effect (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2012
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-011-0547-y Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:scient:v:91:y:2012:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0547-y

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11192

DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0547-y

Access Statistics for this article

Scientometrics is currently edited by Wolfgang Glänzel

More articles in Scientometrics from Springer, Akadémiai Kiadó
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().