The luck of the referee draw: the effect of exchanging reviews is a research paper published in Learned Publishing (2009). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 0.550. It has been cited 38 times.
ABSTRACTIn journal peer review, editorial decisions on submitted manuscripts are informed by referees' expert recommendations; however, the choice of referees may affect these decisions. Using data from Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC‐IE), this study tested what would have happened if referee reports had been received in a different order. In AC‐IE's peer‐review process, a manuscript is generally published only if two referees rate the results of the study as important and also recommend publication in the journal (what we have called the ‘clear‐cut’ rule). For 23% of those manuscripts for which a third referee report arrived after the editorial decision was made (37 of 162), this rule would have led to a different decision if the third report had replaced either of the others.
FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.
Base Score Contribution
0.550
From this paper's citation signal
Citation Network Contribution
0
Citation network not refreshed for this result
This paper's DataRank is currently driven only by its base citation score. Citation network data was not refreshed for this result.
Learn more about DataRank methodology →DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 100% comes from its base citations and 0% from the citation network.
Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.