Skip to main content

ASA member experiences and perceptions of the peer reviewing-editing process (Chapter 4)

Sojka, R.E. and Mayland, H.F. and Gbur, E.E. (1992) ASA member experiences and perceptions of the peer reviewing-editing process (Chapter 4). pp. 35-53. In: Mayland, H.F. and Sojka, R.E. (eds.) Proc. Symp. ASA Annual Meeting. Research Ethics, Manuscript Review and Journal Quality. USA-TX-San Antonio, 1990/10/23. ASA, Madison, WI.

[img] PDF

Download (1MB)


A membership survey regarding policies and attitudes germane
to the peer reviewing and editing practices and policies
of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society
of America, and Soil Science Society of America was deemed
worthwhile. A second survey queried agricultural experiment
station directors on related institutional aspects of the same
topic. Briefly, responses indicated good demographic representation
of editorial boards with some underrepresentation of non-U.S.
addressed members. One-third of the membership has
served on the editorial board of some journal, and 1 in 7.4 has
served on the editorial board of a Tri-Society journal. Females
are used as reviewers one-third as often in proportion to their
membership as are males. The publishing membership of the
Tri-Societies is essentially those members with Ph.D.'s. Two-thirds
of the papers submitted to Tri-Society journals require
institutional review before journal submission. There is twice
the support among the membership for dual anonymity (author
and reviewers) as for reviewer anonymity only (the current
policy). Nearly one-half the membership perceived shared
responsibility by authors and editors for accuracy of published
manuscripts. There was strong concern for seeking qualified
reviewers, guaranteeing quality of reviews, admonishing poor
reviewers, and instituting training in the Tri-Societies for writing/reviewing/editing.
Greater openmindedness was supported
for publishing "negative" or unusual results where
methodology and analysis were acceptable. Concern was expressed
about influence networks undermining the fairness of
the review process. Significant support exists for a rapid-publication
journal in the Tri-Societies. Two-and-one-half times
more authors indicated movement away from Tri-Society journals
than to them, with 44% indicating no change. The major
reasons for journal migration were gravitation to journals that
better reflected some recent shift in research focus, and various
aspects of dissatisfaction with Tri-Society journals. Institutional
responses indicated a strong rationale for developing and
endorsing codes of ethics and limiting Tri-Society responsibility
for ethical infractions.

Item Type: Conference or Workshop Item (Paper)
NWISRL Publication Number: 0767
Additional Information: ACS Misc. Publ.
Subjects: Mass Import - unclassified
Depositing User: Dan Stieneke
Date Deposited: 20 Nov 2010 21:57
Last Modified: 05 Dec 2016 16:52
Item ID: 1057