Abstract
The authors investigate how well peer reviews of articles published in the journal American Sociological Review between 1978 and 1982 predict the articles’ citation impact in the following 32 years. The authors find no evidence of a relationship between review outcomes and citation impact at any time after publication, even when citations are normalized by subfield. Qualitative analysis of the review texts rules out the interpretation that reviewers focused on potential impact but failed to predict it. Instead, reviewers focused on the soundness of the manuscripts’ arguments. The authors discuss how organizational characteristics of review can decouple reviewers’ judgments from impact.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
