Re: The True Cost of the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review)

From: Jim Till <till_at_UHNRES.UTORONTO.CA>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 01:51:59 -0500

On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Fytton Rowland wrote [in part, on the
Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy]:

[fr]> A review study that I undertook last year suggests that
[fr]> the true figure is closer to the $500 than the $1500,
[fr]> assuming a rejection rate of 50%. If rejection rates
[fr]> are very high, as in Manfredi la Manna's example, then
[fr]> the cost per *published* paper is higher. However, one
[fr]> has to ask whether, in a paperless system, rejection
[fr]> rates need to be so high!

Fytton, are the results of your review study openly accessible?
If so, where?

About rejection rates: Zukerman and Merton (1971) reported
substantial variation, with rejection rates of 20-40% in the
physical sciences, and 70-90 percent in the social sciences and

A much more recent study by ALPSP yielded results that appear
to be consistent with the earlier data:

I'd predict that, in a paperless system, rejection rates will
continue to vary across disciplies. If this prediction is
correct, then costs per published paper will also vary across

Jim Till
University of Toronto
Received on Thu Jan 16 2003 - 06:51:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:50 GMT