This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by CAMPANARIO, J. M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Commentary

On Influential Books and Journal Articles Initially Rejected Because of Negative Referees' Evaluations

University of Alcalá, Madrid, Spain

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.

Science Communication, Vol. 16, No. 3, 304-325 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/1075547095016003004


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. A. Meyers Back to the Future Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2008; 190(3): 561 - 564. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. CAMPANARIO Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today--Part 1 Science Communication, March 1, 1998; 19(3): 181 - 211. [Abstract]