There is also a difference bewteen the various fields about how much work justifies a separate publication. This is sometimes called the LPU, "Least Publishable Unit." I think the concept arose in respect to the biomedical sciences, where some consider that it may be quite low.
Jim Till wrote: > > on 08 February 2001, Robert Welham wrote (in part, in a message forwarded > by Sally Morris): > > >[rw] So they use a number of journals and, unconsciously perhaps, send a > >[rw] particular manuscript to the journal highest on their pecking order > >[rw] for which it has an evens chance of being accepted. Rejection rates > >[rw] thus tend to be around 50%. It's a sort of self-assessment exercise > >[rw] which the old hands can get quite good at. > > I think that Robert Welham's '50:50' hypothesis isn't supported by the > evidence that's available. As noted in previous messages to this Forum, > there seems to be real differences in rejection rates across different > fields of research, *not* random variations around 50%. > > Then, his final comment was: > > >[rw] The theory probably does not work for journals which get a lot of > >[rw] contributions from "unprofessional" authors and I guess that is why > >[rw] it begins to break down at the medical end where rejection rates go > >[rw] higher. > > So, he does seem to acknowledge that rejection rates might be higher in > some fields than others, and appears to assume that, insuch fields, there > are more contributions from 'unprofessional' authors (that is, more > amateurs are sending more garbage?). > > I'd agree that, in theoretical high-energy physics (where rejection rates > seem to be quite low), it's probably not easy for 'amateurs' to pretend > that they can make a meaningful contribution to superstring theory! In > such a field, it may be more likely that there's a 'scholarly consensus' > about what's garbage and what isn't. > > I continue to think that Hargens' 'scholarly consensus' hypothesis is the > one that's most strongly supported by the (limited?) amount of evidence > that's available [Hargens, L. L. Scholarly consensus and journal rejection > rates. American Sociology Review 1988:53(1), Feb., 139-51]. The more > there's a 'scholarly consensus' (within a particular field of research) > about what's garbage and what isn't, the lower the rejection rate. > > And, perhaps this hypothesis is also applicable to readers' assessments of > self-archived eprints? > > Jim Till > University of Toronto -- David Goodman Biology Librarian and Co-chair, Electronic Journals Task force Princeton University Library Princeton, NJ 08544-0001 phone: 609-258-3235 fax: 609-258-2627 e-mail: [email protected]
