Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Campanario, J.M."
  1. Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996) 0.05 
    0.053423904 = sum of:
  0.033598956 = product of:
    0.13439582 = sum of:
      0.13439582 = weight(_text_:authors in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13439582 = score(doc=4215,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.22235537 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.048774827 = queryNorm
          0.60441905 = fieldWeight in 4215, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4215)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.019824946 = product of:
    0.039649893 = sum of:
      0.039649893 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039649893 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17080113 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.048774827 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4215)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles
  2. Campanario, J.M.; Acedo, E.: Rejecting highly cited papers : the views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists (2007) 0.01 
    0.011879025 = product of:
  0.02375805 = sum of:
    0.02375805 = product of:
      0.0950322 = sum of:
        0.0950322 = weight(_text_:authors in 273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0950322 = score(doc=273,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22235537 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048774827 = queryNorm
            0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 273, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=273)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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%) received indicated that only 47 scientists (35.6%) 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.
  3. Campanario, J.M.: Large increases and decreases in journal impact factors in only one year : the effect of journal self-citations (2011) 0.01 
    0.011564552 = product of:
  0.023129104 = sum of:
    0.023129104 = product of:
      0.046258207 = sum of:
        0.046258207 = weight(_text_:22 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046258207 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17080113 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048774827 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:53:00

Years

Themes