Commentary
- 1 March 1995
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Science Communication
- Vol. 16 (3) , 304-325
- https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547095016003004
Abstract
This article describes examples of influential and/or highly cited papers that were initially rejected by one or more scientific journals. The work reported in eight of the papers eventually earned Nobel prizes for their authors; six papers later became the most cited of the journals in which they were published. Also described are influential and highly cited scientific books whose authors encountered problems in publishing them. These case studies suggest that, although rejection may subsequently result in an improved manuscript, on other occasions referees may simply have failed to appreciate a paper's importance. Many of these rejected papers also reported unexpected findings or discoveries that challenged conventional models or interpretations.Keywords
This publication has 47 references indexed in Scilit:
- New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review SystemScience, Technology, & Human Values, 1991
- Publishing by—and for?—the NumbersScience, 1990
- The Criterial Crisis of the Academic WorldSociological Inquiry, 1989
- Pathologies of scienceSocial Epistemology, 1987
- Refinement in Biomedical Communication: A Case StudyScience, Technology, & Human Values, 1985
- The 1983 Nobel Prize in ChemistryScience, 1983
- Development of transition-state theoryThe Journal of Physical Chemistry, 1983
- Competency testing for reviewers and editorsBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 1982
- Editorial responsibilities in manuscript reviewBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 1982
- The genetical evolution of social behaviour. IJournal of Theoretical Biology, 1964