On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Jim Till wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Sally Morris wrote: > > > I have been asked whether the acceptance/rejection figures varied > > significantly by subject area, so I have delved deeper into the figures to > > analyse this. The provisional results are interesting (bear in mind, > > though, that the samples for some subjects are very small) > > > > By and large, the arts and humanities journals (if I may call them that) > > appear to be far fussier than those in the sciences, with a marked skew > > towards a low percentage of acceptances. I attach a table for those who can > > read it.
Oops! Initially, I didn't notice that Sally had attached a XLS file containing a more detailed set of data! A revised version of the table that I posted earlier today is: For categories involving more than 10 journals: Percent acceptance....E&M...LS...M&C...M&VS...SS&E...Total under 10.......0.....0....0.....1......1.......2 10-25..........0.....1....0....14.....10......25 25-50..........0....14....3....21......7......45 50-75..........6.....9....1....11......3......30 over 75........0.....5....0.....6......0......11 Total..........6....29....4....53.....21.....113 Again, I combined some of the acceptance rate categories, in order to obtain multiple 2x2 tables (0-50% acceptance vs 50-100% acceptance), and applied Fisher's Exact Test. I did two more comparisons: M&VS (Medical and Veterinary Science) vs LS (Life Science): No statistically-significant difference between acceptance rates (P=0.16). M&VS (Medical and Veterinary Science) vs SS&E (Social Science and Education): No statistically-significant difference between acceptance rates (P=0.15). So, the conclusions in my earlier message (and in Sally's) aren't affected: > Even when one takes into account that I did more than one comparison, it > appears that, on the basis of these figures, SS&E journals do have a lower > acceptance rate, and E&M journals a higher acceptance rate, than LS > journals. So, these data do seem to be consistent with the results of the > Zuckerman and Merton study (referred to in previous messages). Jim Till University of Toronto
