Back stage at Social Problems: An analysis of the editorial decision process, 1993-1996

The publication of scholarly papers in professional journals certifies new contributions to knowledge, as well as the skills of the authors who have s ubjected their work to a process of critical review The peer review process , designed to attract quality research with the use of objective practices, cannot avoid the infusion of parlicularistic judgments. This study examine s how more than 600 manuscripts submitted to Social Problems were processed by its editor and associate editor. It traces the influences of manuscript , author, and reviewer characteristics as Gapers are judged, initially by t he editor, subsequently by expert reviewers, and, once again, by the editor . The reviewers' recommendations, although often reflecting disagreement, o utweigh ail the other measured factors that may affect the editor's decisio ns. The editors, however remain obligated to formulate credible accounts of the decision process, especially when a final disposition departs from the recommendation made by expert reviewers.