Peer Review Metrics and their influence on the Journal Impact

The manuscript processing timeline, a necessary facet of the publishing process, varies from journal to journal, and its influence on the journal impact needs to be studied. The current research looks into the correlation between the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ (submission to first editorial decision; submission to first post-review decision and submission to accept) and the ‘Journal Impact Data’ (2-year Impact Factor; 5-year Impact Factor; Immediacy Index; Eigenfactor Score and Article Influence Score). The data related to ‘Peer Review Metrics’ (submission to first editorial decision; submission to first post-review decision and submission to accept) and ‘Journal Impact Data’ (2-year Impact Factor; 5-year Impact Factor; Immediacy Index; Eigenfactor Score and Article Influence Score) were downloaded from the ‘Nature Research’ journals website https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/about/journal-metrics . Accordingly, correlations were drawn between the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ and the ‘Journal Impact Data’. If the time from ‘submission to first editorial decision’ decreases, the ‘Journal Impact Data’ increases and vice versa. However, an increase or decrease in the time from ‘submission to first editorial decision’ does not affect the ‘Eigenfactor Score’ of the journal and vice versa. An increase or decrease in the time from ‘submission to first post-review decision’ does not affect any ‘Journal Impact Data’ and vice versa. If the time from ‘submission to acceptance’ increases, the ‘Journal Impact Data’ (2-year Impact Factor, 5-year Impact Factor, Immediacy Index and Article Influence Score) also increases, and if the time from ‘submission to acceptance’ decreases, so will the ‘Journal Impact Data’. However, an increase or decrease in the time from ‘submission to acceptance’ does not affect the ‘Eigenfactor Score’ of the journal and vice versa. The study will act as a ready reference tool for the scholars to select the most appropriate submitting platforms for their scholarly endeavours. Furthermore, the performance and evaluative indicators responsible for a journal’s overall research performance can also be understood from a micro-analytical view, which will help the researchers select appropriate journals for their future scholarly submissions. Lengthy publication timelines are a big problem for the researchers because they are not able to get the credit for their research on time. Since the study validates a relationship between the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ and ‘Journal Impact Data’, the findings will be of great help in making an appropriate journal’s choice. The study can be an eye opener for the journal administrators who vocalise a speed-up publication process by enhancing certain areas of publication timeline. The study is the first of its kind that correlates the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ of the journals and the ‘Journal Impact Data’. The study’s findings are limited to the data retrieved from the ‘Nature Research’ journals and cannot be generalised to the full score of journals. The study can be extended across other publishers to generalise the findings. Even the articles’ early access availability concerning ‘Peer Review Metrics’ of the journals and the ‘Journal Impact Data’ can be studied.

Gender Imbalance in the Editorial Activities of a Researcher-led Journal

Editorial decision-making is a fundamental element of the scientific enterprise. We examined whether contributions to editorial decisions at various stages of the publication process is subject to gender disparity, based on analytics collected by the biomedical researcher-led journal eLife. Despite efforts to increase women representation, the board of reviewing editors (BRE) was men-dominant (69%). Moreover, authors suggested more men from the BRE pool, even after correcting for men's numerical over-representation. Although women editors were proportionally involved in the initial editorial process, they were under-engaged in editorial activities involving reviewers and authors. Additionally, converging evidence showed gender homophily in manuscripts assignment, such that men Senior Editors over-engaged men Reviewing Editors. This tendency was stronger in more gender-balanced scientific disciplines. Together, our findings confirm that gender disparities exist along the editorial process and suggest that merely increasing the proportion of women might not be sufficient to eliminate this bias.

Zur Edition von Widmungen – einige musikwissenschaftliche Reflexionen

Musicology has increasingly recognised the relevance of dedications for texts and works. Nevertheless, there seems to be no practical consensus on how to edit the dedications of historical musical sources. Using the example of 19th-century music prints, this essay highlights the role of dedications for a musical work and points out nuances of the phenomenon that are of relevance for editorial decision-making. An overview of functions of dedications in 19th-century music is outlined. This is followed by a theoretically-guided discussion of more ambivalent case examples in which rivaling dedication variants to a single work must be considered from the editor’s perspective. While a complete guideline for the editing of dedications cannot be given in this study, the conclusions drawn may help to establish a common awareness and a best practice.

Seed-Stage Success and Growth of Angel Co-investment Networks

Using hand-collected data, we show that coinvestment is widespread in the angel investment market, even among seed-stage startups. Individual angels with demonstrated seed-stage success experience an increase in the quantity, quality, and geographic and industry spread of their coinvestment connections relative to unsuccessful peers and are rewarded with more deal flow. These results are stronger for less-established angels and for angels whose successes are more indicative of their ability. Success also begets more success: the portfolio companies of successful angels are more likely to receive follow-on financing, especially from VC firms. Our results highlight how angels grow their coinvestment networks. (JEL G24, L14, L26, M13). Received June 8, 2020; editorial decision June 21, 2021 by Editor Isil Erel. Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix, which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online.

The Wisdom of Crowds in FinTech: Evidence from Initial Coin Offerings

Certification by analysts on a FinTech platform that harnesses the “wisdom of crowds” is associated with successful initial coin offerings (ICOs). We show that favorable ratings by a group of analysts with diverse backgrounds positively predict fundraising success and long-run token performance. Analysts’ ratings also help detect potential fraud ex ante. We document that analysts have career concerns and are incentivized by the platform to issue informative ratings. Overall, our results suggest that a market-based certification process that relies on a diverse group of individuals is at play in financing blockchain startups. (JEL D82, G11, G24, G32, G34, L26). Received February 25, 2021; editorial decision July 7, 2021 by Editor Andrew Ellul. Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix, which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online.

Surfing ignorance: Covid-19 and the rise of fatalistic liberalism

How liberal governments manage knowledge, ignorance, prediction, and uncertainty has attracted increased attention in sociology. In this paper, we analyse the strategy of the UK Government during the Covid-19 pandemic to argue it entails a form of productive enrolment of ‘unknowns’ we label ‘surfing ignorance’. This strategy exploits inevitable limits to knowledge of any particular group of actors, and attempts to steer them to maintain political control. We argue this approach departs from the uses of knowledge and ignorance in both classical liberalism and neoliberalism, and theorize a new, hybrid form of governance which can be dubbed fatalistic liberalism. We discuss the relevance of this new form of governance for political futures of an increasingly volatile world. [NOTE: this paper is currently under review. It was first submitted for review in May 2020. Reviews were received in October 2020. The paper was resubmitted after revisions in February 2021. We have not yet heard an editorial decision].