This study documents the course of submission of a group of biomedical research papers to peer-reviewed journals and characterizes their quality through citation analysis for published papers and through a typology of originality for those papers that were never accepted. Of fifty-nine papers, 47 percent (n = 28) were accepted by the first journal to which they were submitted, 25 percent (n = 15) by the second, and 7 percent (n = 6) by the third to sixth journal. For the first five years of publication, the average citation rate per year was 1.5, and 43 percent had more than 1 citation per year. Fifteen papers (25 percent) were never accepted. Typologic analysis of five of these papers suggests some standards by which it may be possible to characterize scientific originality.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abby, M.
, M. D. Massey, S. Galandiuk, and H. C. Polk, Jr.1994. Overall scientific quality improves with peer review evaluation. Journal of the American Medical Association272:105-107.
2.
Bailar, J. C. III
, and K. Patterson. 1985. Journal peer review: The need for a research agenda. New England Journal of Medicine312:654-657.
3.
Bazerman, C.
1988. Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
4.
Beveridge, W. I. B.
1950. The art of scientific investigation. New York: Vintage.
5.
Bonjean, C. M.
, and J. Hullum. 1978. Reasons for journal rejection: An analysis of 600 manuscripts. PS11 (Fall): 480-483.
6.
Boring, E. G.1927. The problem of originality in science. American Journal of Psychology39:84.
7.
Bowen, S.1994. Current controversies in editorial peer review, meeting report. CBE Views16:91-93.
8.
Broad, W.
, and N. Wade. 1982. Betrayers of the truth, 60-87, 212-230. New York: Simon & Schuster.
9.
Chubin, D. E.
, and E. J. Hackett. 1990. Peerless science: Peer review and U.S. science policy, 48, 83-123, 132, 191-217. Albany: State University of New York Press.
10.
Cole, S.
, J. R. Cole, and G. A. Simon. 1981. Chance and consensus in peer review. Science217:881-886.
11.
Coler, M. A.
1963. Creativity and the scientific paper. In Essays on creativity in the sciences, ed. M. A. Cole, 221-235. New York: New York University Press.
12.
Crane, D.1967. The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals. American Sociologist2:195-201.
13.
de Solla Price, D.
1981. The development and structure of the biomedical literature. In Coping with the biomedical literature: A primer for the scientist and the clinician, ed. K. S. Warren, 3-16. New York: Praeger.
14.
de Solla Price, D.
1986. Little science, big science—and beyond, 1-29, 56-81, 112-115, 163-165, 235-253. New York: Columbia University Press.
15.
Dirk, L. 1995. Phenomenal discovery: Originality and the scientific journal peer-review system. Master's thesis, University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications, Gainesville, FL.
16.
Fregly, M. J.
, and M. S. Fregly. 1979. Role of chance in discovery. Journal of the Florida Medical Association66:632-635.
17.
Fye, W. B.1990. Medical authorship: Traditions, trends, and tribulations. Annals of Internal Medicine113:317-325.
18.
Garfield, E.1972. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science178:471-479.
19.
Garvey, W. D.
, and B. C. Griffith. 1967. Scientific communication as a social system. Science157:1011-1016.
20.
Garvey, W. D.
, and B. C. Griffith. 1971. Scientific communication: Its role in the conduct of research and creation of knowledge. American Psychology26:349-362.
21.
Giere, R. N.
1989. The unit of analysis. In The cognitive turn: Sociological and psychological perspectives on science. Sociology of the sciences yearbook, ed. S. Fuller, M. de Mey, T. Shinn, and S. Woolgar, 3-11. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
22.
Gilbert, G. N.1976. The transformation of research findings into scientific knowledge. Social Studies of Science6:281-306.
23.
Goffman, W.
1981. The ecology of the biomedical literature and information retrieval. In Coping with the biomedical literature: A primer for the scientist and the clinician, ed. K. S. Warren, 31-46. New York: Praeger.
24.
Goodman, N. W.1995. Pondering authorship: A symptom of a deeper malaise. Anaesthesia50:485-487.
25.
Gordon, M. D.
1980. The role of referees in scientific communication. In The psychology of written communication: Selected readings, ed. J. Hartley, 263-275. New York: Russell Sage.
26.
Grinnell, F.
1992. The scientific attitude, 2nd ed., 1-21, 27-32. New York: Guilford.
27.
Hall, S. S.1992. How technique is changing science. Science257:344.
28.
Hamilton, D. P.1990. Publishing by—and for?—the numbers. Science250:1331-1332.
29.
Hargens, L. L.
1991. Variation in journal peer review systems: Possible causes and consequences. In Peer review in scientific publishing, 27-31. Chicago: Council of Biology Editors.
30.
Hargens, L. L.
, and J. R. Herting. 1990. A new approach to referees' assessments of manuscripts. Social Science Research19:1-16.
31.
Harnad, S.1982. Peer commentary on peer review. Behavioral and Brain Science5:185-186.
32.
Hilgartner, S.
, and S. I. Brandt-Rauf. 1994. Data access, ownership, and control. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization15:355-372.
33.
Horrobin, D. F.1990. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association263:1438-1441.
34.
Institute for Scientific Information
. 1994. SCI journal citation reports. Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information.
35.
Krippendorff, K.
1989. On the ethics of constructing communication. In Rethinking communication: Volume 1. Paradigm issues, ed. B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. J. O'Keefe, and E. Wartella, 66-96. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36.
Kuhn, T. S.
1970. The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37.
Laudan, L.
1989. From theories to research traditions. In Readings in the philosophy of science, 2nd ed., ed. B. A. Brody and R. E. Grandy, 368-379. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
38.
Lightman, A.
, and O. Gingerich. 1991. When do anomalies begin?Science255:690-695.
39.
Lin, N.
, W. D. Garvey, and C. N. Nelson. 1970. Publication fate of material presented at an annual ASA meeting: Two years after the meeting. American Sociologist5:22-25.
40.
Lock, S.
1986. A difficult balance: Editorial peer review in medicine. Philadelphia: ISI Press.
41.
Luukkonen, T.1990. Bibliometrics and evaluation of research performance. Annals of Medicine22:145-150.
42.
MacRoberts, M. H.
, and B. R. MacRoberts. 1986. Quantitative measures of communication in science: A study of the formal level. Social Studies of Science16:151-172.
43.
Mahoney, M. J.1977. Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research1:161-175.
44.
McCormick, M. C.
, and J. H. Holmes. 1985. Publication of research presented at the pediatric meetings: Change in selection. American Journal of Diseases of Children139:122-126.
45.
Meranze, J.
, N. Ellison, and D. E. Greenhow. 1982. Publications resulting from anesthesia meeting abstracts. Anesthesia and Analgesia61:445-448.
46.
Merton, R. K.
1988. Reference groups, invisible colleges, and deviant behavior in science. In Surveying social life: Papers in honor of Herbert H. Hyman, ed. H. J. O'Gorman, 174-189. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
47.
Moravcsik, M. J.
1988. Some contextual problems of science indicators. In Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology, ed. A. F. J. van Raan, 1-30. New York: Elsevier Science.
48.
Mullins, N.
, W. Snizek, and K. Oehler. 1988. The structural analysis of a scientific paper. In Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology, ed. A. F. J. van Raan, 81-105. New York: Elsevier Science.
49.
Peters, D. P.
, and S. J. Ceci. 1982. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Science5:187-195.
50.
Phillips, D. P.
, E. J. Kanter, B. Bednarczyk, and P. L. Tastad. 1991. Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. New England Journal of Medicine325:1180-1183.
51.
Rennie, D.1986. Guarding the guardians: A conference on editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association256:2391-2392.
52.
Rennie, D.1990. Editorial peer review in biomedical publication: The First International Congress. Journal of the American Medical Association263:1317.
53.
Robin, E. D.1987. Iatroepidemics: A probe to examine systematic preventable errors in (chest) medicine. American Review of Respiratory Disease135:1155-1156.
54.
Robin, E. D.
, and C. M. Burke. 1987. Peer review in medical journals. Chest91:252-255.
55.
Scherer, R. W.
, K. Dickersin, and P. Langenberg. 1994. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association272:158-162.
56.
Siegelman, S. S.1991. Assassins and zealots: Variation in peer review. Radiology178:637-642.
57.
Smigel, E. O.
, and H. L. Ross. 1970. Factors in the editorial decision. American Sociologist5:19-21.
58.
Star, S. L.1988. Introduction: The sociology of science and technology. Social Problems35:197-205.
59.
Taubes, G.1993. Measure for measure in science. Science260:884-886.
60.
Wolff, W. M.1970. A study of criteria for journal manuscripts. American Psychologist25:636-639.
61.
Woolf, P. K.1987. Ensuring integrity in biomedical publication. Journal of the American Medical Association258:3424-3427.
62.
Yentis, S. M.
, F. A. Campbell, and J. Lerman. 1993. Publication of abstracts presented at anaesthesia meetings. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia40:632-634.
63.
Ziman, J. M.
1968. Public knowledge: An essay concerning the social dimension of science, 102-126. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
64.
Zuckerman, H.
, and R. K. Merton. 1971. Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva9:66-100.
