, Volume 102, Issue 2, pp 1347–1374 | Cite as

Factors determining authors’ willingness to wait for editorial decisions from economic history journals

  • Eline Poelmans
  • Sandra Rousseau


In this contribution, we measure how long researchers are willing to wait (WTW) for an editorial decision on the acceptance or rejection of a submitted manuscript. This measure serves as a proxy for the expected value of a publication to a researcher in the field of economic, business and financial history. We analyze how this WTW measure varies with the characteristics of the submitting authors themselves. We distinguish the impact of personal characteristics (including age, gender and geographic location) as well as work-related characteristics (including research discipline, affiliation and academic position). To identify the factors determining economic history authors’ WTW for editorial decisions, we use a valuation technique known as stated choice experiments. Our results show that respondents found the standing of the journal to be at least as important as its ISI impact factor. Moreover, we find differences in publication culture between economic and history departments. Overall, researchers’ willingness to wait is influenced to a greater extent by the research discipline in which the respondents are active (history vs. economics), than by their personal characteristics (e.g. the education or the type of Ph.D. they obtained).


Willingness-to-wait Manuscript submissions Economic history Stated choice experiments 

JEL Classification

A12 C25 N00 



We thank all colleagues who took part in the survey for the time they invested in our research. Moreover, we thank Alexander Genoe, Mathias Genoe, Geert Poelmans and Ronald Rousseau for their research assistance as well as the anonymous reviewers for useful comments.


  1. Abt, H. A. (1987). Are papers by well-known astronomers accepted for publication more readily than other papers? Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 99, 439–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alberini, A., Longo, A., & Veronesi, M. (2006). Basic statistical models for stated choice studies. In B. J. Kanninen (Ed.), Valuing environmental amenities using Stated choice studies (pp. 203–227). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Amat, C. B. (2008). Editorial and publication delay of papers submitted to 14 Selected Food Research Journals. Influence of online posting. Scientometrics, 74(3), 379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amaya-Amaya, M., Gerard, K., & Ryan, M. (2008). Discrete choice experiments in a nutshell. In M. Ryan, K. Gerard, & M. Amaya-Amaya (Eds.), Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care (pp. 13–46). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151–161.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Björk, B.-C., & Holmström, J. (2006). Benchmarking scientific journals from the submitting author’s viewpoint. Learned Publishing, 19(2), 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Björk, B.-C., & Öörni, A. (2009). A method for comparing scholarly journals as service providers to authors. Serials Review, 35, 62–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Björk, B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 914–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheung, C. (2010). Audience matters: A study of how authors select educational journals. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 17, 191–201.Google Scholar
  10. Christie, M., Warren, J., Hanley, N., Murphy, K., Wright, R., Hyde, T., et al. (2004). Developing measures for valuing changes in biodiversity: Final report. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.Google Scholar
  11. Conley, J. P., Crucinni, M. J., Driskill, R. A., & Onder, A. S. (2011). Incentives and the effects of publication lags on life cycle research productivity in economics. Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, working paper, no. 11-w22, November 2011.Google Scholar
  12. Day, B., Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Dupont, D., Louviere, J. J., Morimoto, S., et al. (2012). Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 63(1), 73–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Bekker-Grob, E. W., Hol, L., Donkers, B., van Dam, L., Habbema, J. D. F., van Leerdam, M. E., et al. (2010). Labeled versus unlabeled discrete choice experiments in health economics: An application to colorectal cancer screening. Value in Health, 13, 315–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Desjardins, Y. (2011). The work continues. Chronica Horticulturae, 51(1), 3–4.Google Scholar
  15. Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2000). The influence of publication delays on the observed aging distribution of scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(2), 158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellison, G. (2002). The Economic slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process. Journal of Political Economy, 110(5), 947–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Engels, T., Ossenblok, T., & Spruyt, E. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities, 2000–2009. Scientometrics, 93(2), 373–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frank, E. (1994). Authors’ criteria for selecting journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 163–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gordon, M. D. (1984). How authors select journals: A test of reward maximization models of submission behavior. Social Studies of Science, 14, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanley, N., Mourato, S., & Wright, R. E. (2001). Choice modeling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(3), 435–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanley, N., Wright, R. E., & Koop, G. (2002). Modelling recreation demand using choice experiments: Climbing in Scotland. Environmental & Resource Economics, 22(3), 449–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social science. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 473–495). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  23. Kling, R., & Swygart-Hobaugh, A. J. (2002). The internet and the velocity of scholarly journal publishing. Working paper no. WP-02-12, Bloomington, IN: Rob Kling Center for Social Informatics, School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  24. Knight, L. V., Steinbach, T. A., & Levy, Y. (2008). Selecting an appropriate publication outlet: A comprehensive model of journal selection criteria for researchers in a broad range of academic disciplines. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 3, 59–79.Google Scholar
  25. Kwak, S.-Y., Yoo, S.-H., & Kwak, S.-J. (2010). Valuing energy-saving measures in residential buildings: A choice experiment study. Energy Policy, 38(1), 673–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leyman, A., Vandevelde, K., Van Rossem, R., & Groenvynck, H. (2011). Senior onderzoekers aan het woord. [Senior researchers’ opinions]. Ghent: Human Researchers in Research.Google Scholar
  27. List, J. A., & Shogren, J. F. (1999). Price information and bidding behavior in repeated second—price auctions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81, 942–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Louviere, J. J., & Hensher, D. A. (1982). On the design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modeling. Transportation Research Record, 890, 11–17.Google Scholar
  29. Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods: Analysis and application. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Louviere, J. J., & Woodworth, G. (1983). Design and analysis of stimulated choice experiments or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 350–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Luukkonen, T. (1992). Is scientists’ publishing behavior reward seeking? Scientometrics, 24, 297–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Luwel, M., & Moed, H. F. (1998). Publication delays in the science field and their relationship to the ageing of scientific literature. Scientometrics, 41(1–2), 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer. ISBN 1-4020-3713-9.Google Scholar
  34. Nicholas, D., Jamali, H. R., & Rowlands, I. (2006). On the tips of their tongues: Authors and their views on scholarly publishing. Learned Publishing, 19(3), 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pinski, G., & Narin, F. (1976). Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications: Theory, with application to the literature of physics. Information Processing and Management, 12(5), 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rousseau, R. (2002). Journal evaluation: Technical and practical issues. Library Trends, 50(3), 418–439.Google Scholar
  37. Rousseau, S., & Rousseau, R. (2012). Interactions between journal attributes and authors’ willingness to wait for editorial decisions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(6), 1213–1225.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. Rousseau, S., & Vranken, L. (2013). Green market expansion by reducing information asymmetries: Evidence for labeled organic food products. Food Policy, 40, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., Booij, M., & Verckens, J.P. (2011). Methoden en technieken van onderzoek. [Research methods and techniques]. Amsterdam: Pearson Education Benelux.Google Scholar
  40. Schaffner, A. (2002). Swiss Medical Weekly—one year at sea after major overhaul. Swiss Medical Weekly, 132(3), 3.Google Scholar
  41. Søreide, K., & Winter, D. C. (2010). Global survey of factors influencing choice of surgical journal for manuscript submission. Surgery, 147(4), 475–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stock, W. G. (2009). The inflation of impact factors of scientific journals. ChemPhysChem, 10, 2193–2196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Street, D. J., Burgess, L., & Louviere, J. J. (2005). Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22, 459–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thompson, P. J. (2007). How to choose the right journal for your manuscript. Chest, 132, 1073–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yu, G., Yu, D., & Li, Y. (2004). The universal expression of periodical average publication delay at steady state. Scientometrics, 60(2), 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ziobrowski, A. J., & Gibler, K. M. (2000). Factors academic real estate authors consider when choosing where to submit a manuscript for publication. Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education, 3, 43–54.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and BusinessKU LeuvenBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations