Rejecting highly cited papers

["Hamaker, Charles" <cahamake@uncc.edu>]

Perhaps of some interest given recent discussions.

Rejecting highly cited papers: The views of scientists who 
encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists


Source:  Journal of the American Society for Information Science 
and Technology: Volume 58 , Issue 5 (March 2007) table of 
contents

Pages: 734 - 743 
Year of Publication: 2007
ISSN:  1532-2882
Authors Juan Miguel Campanario & Erika Acedo

<http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3D1231003.1231017&coll=3DGUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=3D44091151>=20

ABSTRACT

We studied the views of scientists who experience resistance to 
their new ideas by surveying a sample of 815 scientists who are 
authors of highly cited articles. The 132 responses 
(16.2&percnt;) received indicated that only 47 scientists 
(35.6&percnt;) had no problems with referees, editors, or other 
scientists. The most common causes of difficulty were rejection 
of the manuscript, and scepticism, ignorance, and 
incomprehension. The most common arguments given by referees 
against papers were that the findings were an insufficient 
advance to warrant publication, lacked practical impact, were 
based on a wrong hypothesis, or were based on a wrong concept. 
The strategies authors used to overcome resistance included 
obtaining help from someone to publish problematic papers, making 
changes in the text, and simple persistence. Despite 
difficulties, however, some respondents acknowledged the positive 
effect of peer review. =A9 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Chuck Hamaker