Abstract
ABSTRACTIn journal peer review, editorial decisions on submitted manuscripts are informed by referees' expert recommendations; however, the choice of referees may affect these decisions. Using data from Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC‐IE), this study tested what would have happened if referee reports had been received in a different order. In AC‐IE's peer‐review process, a manuscript is generally published only if two referees rate the results of the study as important and also recommend publication in the journal (what we have called the ‘clear‐cut’ rule). For 23% of those manuscripts for which a third referee report arrived after the editorial decision was made (37 of 162), this rule would have led to a different decision if the third report had replaced either of the others.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
