The reported refereeing times taken from submission to acceptance for psychology journal articles were assessed in three separate studies, and the results then pooled. The pooled data suggested (i) that the papers of single authors were refereed faster than were those of pairs or larger groups, and (ii) that the papers of single authors that contained portions that had previously been delivered at conferences were refereed fastest of all. Some limitations of these studies that might have a bearing on these conclusions are considered.
B. Cronin , D. Shaw and K. La Barre , A cast of thousands: coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly literature of Psychology and Philosophy , Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology54(9) (2003) 855-871 .
2.
B.-A. Lipetz , Aspects of JASIS authorship through five decades , Journal of the American Society for Information Science50(11) (1999) 994-1003 .
3.
B. Fisher , C.T. Cobane , T.M. Vander Ven and F.T. Cullen , How many authors does it take to publish an article? Trends and patterns in Political Science , PS Online. Available at: www.apsanet.org/PS/dec98/fisheretal.cfm) (accessed 11 January 2005).
4.
G. Lewison and J. Hartley , What’s in a title? Numbers of words and presence of a colon , Scientometrics63(2) (2005) (in press).
5.
K.B. Wray , The epistemic significance of collaborative research , Philosophy of Science69 (2002) 150-168 .
6.
A.C. Weller , Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses ( American Society for Information Science and Technology, Medford, New Jersey , 2001).
7.
D.D. Beaver , Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority?Scientometrics60(3) (2004) 399-408 .
8.
J. Hartley , J.W. Pennebaker and C. Fox , Using new technology to assess the academic writing styles of male and female pairs and individuals , Journal of Technical Writing and Communication33(3) (2003) 243-261 .
9.
J. Hartley , On requesting conference papers electronically , Journal of Information Science30(5) (2004) 475-479 .
10.
G.M Huemer , T. Bauer , R. Gurunluoglu , C. Sakho , M. Oehlbauer and K.M. Dunst , Analysis of publications in three plastic surgery journals for the year 2002 , Plastic and Reconstruction Surgery114(5) (2004) 1147-1154 .
11.
P. Stolk , A.C.B. Egberts and H.G.M. Leufkens , Fate of abstracts presented at five international conferences on pharmacoepidemiology (ICPE): 1955-1999 , Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety11(2) (2002) 105-111 .
12.
J. Hartley , Single authors are not alone: colleagues often help , Scholarly Communication34(2) (2003) 108-113 .
13.
A.P. Moller and M.D. Jennions , Testing and adjusting for publication bias , Trends in Ecology and Evolution16(10) (2001) 580-586 .
14.
M Shirabe and H. Tomizawa , Likelihood of inbound/outbound access to co-authorship , Scientometrics59(3) (2004) 337-344 .
15.
R.W. Scherer and P. Langenberg , Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library 4 (2004) ( Update Software, Oxford ). [Paper available from the author, R.W. Scherer, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 2120, USA (rscherer@epi.umaryland.edu).]
16.
G. Yu , D. Yu and Y. Li , The universal expression of periodical average publication delay at steady state , Scientometrics60(2) (2004) 121-129 .
17.
J.D. Miller , Quick peer review for $125, The Scientist, April 20 (2004). Available at: www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040420/02 (accessed 20 December 2004).
18.
A.S. Gerber , D.P. Green and D. Nickerson , Testing for publication bias in political science , Political Analysis9(4) (2001) 385-392 .
19.
R. Hubbard and J.S. Armstrong , Are null results becoming an endangered species in marketing?Marketing Letters3(2) (1992) 127-136 .
