Skip to main content

Peer Review and Research Impact

Abstract

In academia, citations received by articles are a critical metric for measuring research impact. An important aspect of publishing in academia is the ability of the authors to navigate the review process, and despite its critical role, very little is known about how the review process may impact the research impact of an article. We propose that characteristics of the review process, namely, number of revisions and time with authors during review, will influence the article’s research impact, post-publication. We also explore the moderating role of the authors’ social status on the relationship between the review process and the article’s success. We use a unique data set of 434 articles published in Marketing Science to test our propositions. After controlling for a host of factors, we find broad support for our propositions. We develop critical insights for researchers and academic administrators based on our findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Data was available in days, but we used months for ease of representation of the scale of the coefficients.

  2. 2.

    The results from this robustness analysis are available upon request.

References

  1. 1.

    Azar OH (2004) Rejections and the importance of first response times. Int J Soc Econ 31(3):259–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Bakanic V, McPhail C, Simon RJ (1987) The manuscript review and decision-making process. Am Sociol Rev 52(5):631–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Baumgartner H, Pieters R (2003) The structural influence of marketing journals: a citation analysis of the discipline and its subareas over Tim. J Mark 67(April):123–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Benda WGG, Tim C, Engels E (2011) The predictive validity of peer review: a selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science. Int J Forecast 27(1):166–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bergh DD, Perry J, Hanke R (2006) Some predictors of SMJ article impact. Strateg Manag J 27(1):81–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bessen J, Maskin E (2009) Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation. RAND J Econ 40(4):611–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Beyer JM, Chanove RG, Fox WB (1995) The review process and the fates of manuscripts submitted to AMJ. Acad Manage J 38(5):1219–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S (1998) What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 280(3):231–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Carpenter MA (2009) Editor’s comments: mentoring colleagues in the craft and spirit of peer review. Acad Manage Rev 34(2):191–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Cole S, Simon G, Cole JR (1988) Do journal rejection rates index consensus? Am Sociol Rev 53(1):152–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Cooper RG (2008) Perspective: the stage gate® idea to launch process—update, what’s new, and NexGen systems. J Prod Innov Manag 25(3):213–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    DeSarbo WS, Jedidi K, Sinha I (2001) Customer value analysis in a heterogeneous market. Strateg Manag J 22(9):845–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Grewal R, Lilien GL, Mallapragada G (2006) Location, location, location: how network embeddedness affects project success in open source systems. Manag Sci 52(7):1043–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hinds PJ, Bailey DE (2003) Out of sight, out of sync: understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organ Sci 615–32

  15. 15.

    Horrobin DF (1990) The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA 263(10):1438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Kassirer JP, Campion EM (1994) Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA 272(2):96–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Kronick DA (1990) Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA 263(10):1321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Lehmann DR (2005) Journal evolution and the development of marketing. J Public Policy Mark 24(1):137–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Lewis MW, Welsh AM, Dehler GE, Green SG (2002) Product development tensions: exploring contrasting styles of project management. Acad Manage J 45(3):546–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Mallapragada G, Grewal R, Lilien G (2012) User-generated open source products: founder’s social capital and time to product release. Mark Sci 31(3):474–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    McLachlan GJ, Peel D (2000) Finite mixture models. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Medoff MH (2003) Collaboration and the quality of economics research. Labour Econ 10(5):597–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Merton RK (1957) Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science. Am Sociol Rev 22(6):635–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Merton RK (1961) Singletons and multiples in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science. Proc Am Philos Soc 105(5):470–86

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Rooyen V, Susan FG, Evans S, Smith R, Black N (1998) Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 280(3):234–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Schoonhoven CB, Eisenhardt KM, Lyman K (1990) Speeding products to market: waiting time to first product introduction in new firms. Adm Sci Q 35(1)

  27. 27.

    Simonton DK (2002) Great psychologists and their times: scientific insights into psychology’s history. Am Psychol Assoc

  28. 28.

    Smith PG (1999) From experience: reaping benefit from speed to market. J Prod Innov Manag 16(3):222–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Stremersch S, Verhoef PC (2005) Globalization of authorship in the marketing discipline: does it help or hinder the field? Mark Sci 24(4):585–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Stremersch S, Verniers I, Verhoef PC (2007) The quest for citations: drivers of article impact. J Mark 71(3):171–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Swaminathan V, Moorman C (2009) Marketing alliances, firm networks, and firm value creation. J Mark 73(5):52–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Tellis GJ, Chandy RK, Ackerman DS (1999) In search of diversity: the record of major marketing journals. J Mark Res 36(February):120–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Girish Mallapragada.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mallapragada, G., Lahiri, N. & Nerkar, A. Peer Review and Research Impact. Cust. Need. and Solut. 3, 29–41 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-015-0060-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Peer review process
  • Research impact
  • Negative binomial models