This study examines differences in perceptions of journal quality and editorial support among three categories of Chinese authors: those whose manuscripts were accepted without revision, those whose manuscripts were accepted after revision, and those whose manuscripts were rejected. An analysis of online reviews of journal quality and editorial support in six disciplines revealed the existence of biases caused by authors' submission experiences. The results show that a Chinese author will rate the quality of a journal and its editorial support higher if his or her manuscript was accepted by the journal regardless of whether he or she was required to make revisions. The results also indicate that no major variations exist in perceptions of journal quality and editorial support between authors whose manuscripts were accepted without revision and authors whose manuscripts were accepted after revision.
|Number of pages||10|
|Journal||Journal of Scholarly Publishing|
|Publication status||Published - 1 Jan 2012|
- editorial support
- journal quality
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Media Technology