RE: Journal rejection and acceptance rates

["John Cox" <John.E.Cox@btinternet.com>]

Acceptance and rejection rates comprise a crude measure - a rule 
of thumb, rather than an accurate statistical measure of quality. 
For the publisher, acceptance and rejections rates, and the flow 
of submissions, are all indicators of a journal's health.  When 
the acceptance rate is low - and getting lower - and the 
rejection rate is high and increasing, it will be clear that the 
journal is turning away good papers.  It will then be time to 
assess whether the journal should increase the number of pages to 
be published, or increase frequency.  These are both derived from 
the requirements of printed journals, but still hold sway as the 
vast majority of journals are still published in print as well as 
online.  I emphasise that it is only a rule of thumb, and cannot 
be used in isolation.

Each journal, and each publisher, is different.  Moreover, 
journal editors are independent and not employed by the 
publisher.  In the days before online submission and peer review 
systems such as Editorial Manager and ScholarOne Manuscript were 
introduced, the breakdown of various categories of rejection (or 
should we call them non-acceptance?) were not kept because nobody 
asked for such a detailed breakdown, and because the Editor's 
obligation was to deliver to the publisher accepted manuscripts 
within the parameters set out in the journal budget.  The Editor 
counted submissions and acceptances.  Period.

While it is absurd to suggest that a journal with 100% rejection 
rate is of the highest quality, when the rate of rejections 
(non-acceptances) reaches 75-80%, it is time to examine the 
future publishing plans for the journal. It is a useful 
indicator.  No, it is not auditable in the same way as journal 
subscription or circulation numbers, or usage data, because it is 
only a rule of thumb.

Don't apply statistical rigour to a measure that has never been 
captured or used in that way.  And, in respect of judgments about 
a journal's 'quality', it should be used in conjunction with 
other measures such as usage and Impact Factor.

John Cox
Managing Director
John Cox Associates Ltd
Rookwood, Bradden
Towcester, Northamptonshire
NN12 8ED
United Kingdom
E-mail: John.E.Cox@btinternet.com
Web: www.johncoxassociates.com