520195

research-article2014
JMQXXX10.1177/1077699013520195Journalism & Mass Communication QuarterlyWatson and Riffe

Editorial Report
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly
2014, Vol. 91(1) 5­–16
Who Submits Work to © 2014 AEJMC
Reprints and permissions:
JMCQ and Why? sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1077699013520195
A Demographic Profile jmcq.sagepub.com

and Belief Summary

Brendan R. Watson1 and Daniel Riffe2

This article reports results of a survey of authors of submissions to Quarterly over a

five-year period. The goal was to take stock of who the journal’s contributors are and
to get a sense of their evaluation of the peer review process. In addition to describing
authors who submit their work (faculty rank, academic degrees, years in teaching, etc.),
we chose to examine their views on peer review because of concerns in the literature—
in journalism and mass communication (J/MC) and the academy in general—with the
process.
Studies have shown the process can have inconsistent standards,1 an inability to
catch mistakes2 or detect fraud,3 a confirmatory bias,4 and even bias against female
authors.5 Given demographic shifts in the academy—women outnumber men
among those earning doctorates, though they remain outnumbered among tenure-
track faculty6—examining perceived fairness of peer review is timely. This study
investigates perceived biases against specific research approaches, but also per-
ceived gender bias.7
We also see these data as providing an “update” to a number of previous studies of
J/MC scholars’ perceptions of peer review. Ryan compared journal referees and J/MC
faculties’ rankings of sixty evaluation criteria.8 While Ryan asked about peer review
“in principle,” Leslie had AEJMC (Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication) members report their levels of satisfaction with peer review “in prac-
tice.”9 Leslie called it “startling—and troubling” that the highest-rated practice is
essentially clerical: “acknowledgment of receipt of your article”! Leslie also solicited
open-ended responses, which included descriptions of an “old boys” network and

1University of Minnesota-Twin Cities.

2University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Corresponding Author:
Daniel Riffe, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill,
383 Carroll Hall, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3365, USA.
Email: driffe@email.unc.edu

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2016

6 Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(1)

comments that J/MC research is “too quantitative” and “based on social science meth-
odologies.” Surveying AEJMC members, Poindexter found women more likely than
men to rate “bias against methods” and “bias against topics” as threats to the peer
review process.10
Surveys in other disciplines have found the strongest predictor of satisfaction is
simply whether one’s latest manuscript was accepted.11 The authors concluded that
peer review is seen as a “hurdle” rather than an opportunity to obtain advice and assis-
tance.12 This “hurdle vs. opportunity” issue has not been addressed within J/MC. Thus,
we pose three research questions:

RQ1: What is the demographic profile of authors submitting to Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly (JMCQ)?
RQ2: How do authors evaluate JMCQ’s peer review process, compared with mass
communication journals “generally”?
RQ3: What individual characteristics best predict satisfaction with the peer review
process?

Method
Design and Sample
Authors who had submitted at least one manuscript to JMCQ from 2005 to 2010 were
invited to complete a web-based survey about the review process for the last article
they submitted to JMCQ and about review processes of other mass communication
journals. A link was emailed in fall 2010 to 714 authors; five reminders yielded 377
(52.8%) responses (330 were fully completed). To secure human subjects approval, all
identifying information was removed once survey responses were received. No iden-
tifying information was ever shared with any journal personnel, a fact emphasized to
respondents.
Respondents indicated the decision (accept, reject, revise) on their last JMCQ sub-
mission, how many articles they submitted and had accepted by JMCQ and other mass
communication journals during 2005-2010, and their total career peer-reviewed pub-
lications (as sole or co-authors). They reported hours per week spent on research and
percentage of work effort devoted to research. Each identified a preferred research
approach: qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, or “other.” Finally, respondents
indicated their age, sex, years of experience in higher education, highest degree, aca-
demic rank, and tenure status.
To measure beliefs about the peer review process, respondents used a 7-point scale
(7 = strongly agree) with seventeen statements adapted from previous studies13 about
peer review (see Table 2 for wording and descriptive statistics), ranging from admin-
istrative processes to the substance of reviewer comments, to perceptions of bias and
whether reviewer comments were helpful in improving one’s work. Respondents com-
pleted the battery of seventeen items for “mass communication journals” before com-
pleting the same battery for JMCQ.

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2016

Watson and Riffe 7

Based on principal components analyses, eleven of the seventeen items loaded on

a single “Overall Satisfaction” component for both JMCQ (α = .972) and “mass com-
munication journals” (α = .952), while three loaded on an “Overall Bias” component
(JMCQ, α = .917; “mass communication journals,” α = .837). While three questions
failed to load, one (“I was satisfied with the time it took to complete the initial review
of my submission”) was retained as a single-item measure.

Results
RQ1 asked about the demographic profile of authors submitting to JMCQ. As Table 1
shows, the average respondent was forty-four and had spent nearly eleven years in
higher education. Fifty-six percent were men and most (87.6%) held doctorates.
Twenty-six (8.0%) were grad students, more than half (51.9%) were associate or full
professors, and 52.8% were tenured. Respondents averaged 17.8 hours weekly on
research, which constituted about 38% of work effort. A plurality (44.4%) preferred
quantitative methods, compared with 38.3% mixed-methods and 14.8% qualitative
methods.
Respondents averaged 15.5 articles published in peer-reviewed journals across
their career, had submitted 9.9 articles to peer-reviewed journals in the past five years,
and had 7.5 accepted. Each respondent’s five-year “success rate” was computed as
follows: number of manuscripts published divided by number submitted—the sample-
wide average was 0.711 with a SD = 0.272.
They had submitted an average of 1.8 articles to JMCQ in the past five years, of
which 0.70 had been accepted (average JMCQ “success rate” = 0.325, SD = 0.411).
The fact that half are at senior rank and tenured, and that all had submitted a manu-
script to JMCQ in the past five years, suggests that these are experienced scholars.
Table 1 data also reveal similarities, and some differences, between male and
female contributors. Notably, there are no statistically significant differences on a
number of individual characteristics—tenure status, rank (despite a greater percentage
of female graduate students and assistant professors), degree attainment—as well as
time (in hours per week) and effort (as a percentage of total) devoted to research and
preferred research approach. Generally speaking, male and female contributors to
JMCQ have been similarly active as researchers during the last five years (in terms of
similar numbers of articles submitted and published in JMCQ and in other peer-
reviewed journals).
Career-wise, however, men in the sample had significantly more total refereed
journal publications (17.5) than women (12.9), a “gender gap” in productivity that
mirrors age differences: female respondents were significantly younger than their
male counterparts and had significantly less academic experience. Judging from self-
reported data for this sample, then, any gender difference in research productivity is a
function of the age and greater accumulated experience of the males in the sample.
RQ2 asked how this sample of J/MC scholars evaluated JMCQ’s peer review pro-
cess. As shown in Table 2 data for the eleven satisfaction measures, authors rated
JMCQ most favorably in terms of politeness (M = 4.96/7, SD = 1.552) and clarity of

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2016

8 Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(1)

Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics on Academic Variables, Age and Years on Faculty, and
Research Activity, by Gender.

Total (N = 318) Men (n = 178) Women (n = 140)

  % % %
Tenured 52.8 56.7 47.9
Rank
 Professor 17.6 20.8 13.5
  Associate professor 34.3 35.0 33.3
  Assistant professor 32.7 28.4 38.3
 Other 3.4 4.3 2.1
  Graduate student 8.0 6.0 10.6
Degree
 Doctorate 87.6 88.5 86.5
 Master’s 10.8 9.3 12.8
 Other 1.5 2.2 0.7
Research orientation
  Quantitative methods 44.4 45.6 43.0
  Mixed methods 38.3 40.1 35.9
  Qualitative methods 14.8 13.2 16.9
 Other 2.5 1.1 4.2
  M Ma Ma
Age in years 44.0 45.2 42.4
Age in faculty position 10.6 11.7 9.2
Career total refereed journal articles 15.5 17.5 12.9
JMCQ submissions last five years 1.8 1.8 1.8
JMCQ acceptances last five years 0.7 0.6 0.8
Other journal submissions, last five 9.9 10.4 9.4
Other journal acceptances, last five 7.5 7.6 7.3
Hours per week for research 17.8 17.9 17.6
Percentage work effort: Research 37.8 38.0 37.3
Percentage work effort: Service 18.3 18.6 17.8

Note. JMCQ = Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly.

aMeans joined by common underscore are significantly different, by t-test, p ≤ .05.

reviewers’ comments (M = 4.75/7, SD = 1.501), but rated the journal’s reviewing pro-
cess least favorably in terms of its contribution to subsequent scholarship (M = 3.98/7,
SD = 1.760). Based on an average across all eleven measures (i.e., Table 2’s “Overall
Satisfaction”), authors are slightly more positive than negative in their view of the
journal’s peer review process (M = 4.47/7, SD = 1.54), with ten of the eleven compo-
nent items garnering mean scores above the midpoint.
RQ2 also asked how JMCQ’s peer review process compared with other mass com-
munication journals’ processes. First, note that all eleven satisfaction items’ means for
mass communication journals were above the scale midpoint. As indicated in Table 2’s

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2016

Watson and Riffe 9

Table 2.  Peer Review Survey Items,a and Descriptive Statistics and Percentage of
Agreement, by JMCQ Comparedb with Mass Communication Journals Generally (No. of
Cases = 315-322).
JMCQ Mass communication journals

Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly

  M disagree (%) agree (%) M disagree (%) agree (%)

“Overall Satisfaction” 4.47 8.2* 37.6 4.45 4.2 31.5

(eleven-item average)
  How would you rate your 4.23 22.4** 30.9 4.37 12.4 24.8
satisfaction with the peer
review process?
  How satisfied were you with 4.63* 17.6 39.4** 4.41 13.3 27.3
the editor’s letter explaining
the editorial decision.
  I appreciated the 4.43 15.8 30.6* 4.33 13.3 23.0
thoroughness of reviewers’
feedback.
  Reviewers’ comments 4.52 14.8 31.8* 4.54 10.9 23.9
focused on the substance
and presentation of my
research.
  Reviewers’ comments were 4.75* 9.4 34.5** 4.56 8.5 22.4
clear and understandable.
  Reviewers’ comments were 4.96** 7.9 40.0** 4.72 7.6 29.4
polite and professional.
  Reviewers’ comments 4.38 16.7 28.8* 4.30 14.2 20.9
reflected close and careful
consideration of my
manuscript.
  Reviewers’ comments were 4.31 20.3 31.5 4.56** 11.8 24.8
helpful in improving the
manuscript.
  The peer review process has 4.32 18.8** 28.2 4.62** 10.6 30.6
enhanced my scholarship.
  Reviewers’ expertise was 4.47 14.8 28.5** 4.32 12.1 17.0
reflected in their editorial
comments.
  Reviewers’ comments have 3.98 23.0** 21.2 4.34** 12.7 20.6
been helpful in improving
my subsequent work.
“Overall Bias” (three-item 3.91 14.5 18.5 3.90 11.2 13.9
average)
  Reviewers are open to a 3.81 18.5 13.6 3.94 19.4 16.1
variety of methods.
  Reviewers are open to a 3.98 17.9 18.8 3.95 16.1 14.2
variety of topics/subjects.
  Reviewers are open to 3.95 18.5 16.7** 3.81 18.8 10.3
different ideological
perspectives.
I was satisfied with the time it 4.44** 20 34.5** 3.86 20.6 14.8
took to complete the initial
review of my submission.

Note. JMCQ = Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly.

aItems rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree).
bAsterisks indicate significant differences; differences between means were tested with paired-samples t-tests;

differences between percentages were tested using chi-square tests.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2016

10 Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(1)

comparisons of means (paired-samples t-test), there were no significant differences

between authors’ “Overall Satisfaction” with JMCQ’s or with mass communication
journals’ peer review processes (JMCQ, M = 4.47; mass communication journals, M =
4.45), or their perceptions that the review processes were free of bias (JMCQ “Overall
Bias,” M = 3.91; mass communication journals, M = 3.90).
JMCQ was viewed more positively than mass communication journals in terms of
administrative performance—the time it takes to complete the initial review of a man-
uscript (JMCQ, M = 4.44; mass communication journals, M = 3.86) and correspon-
dence explaining the editorial decision (JMCQ, M = 4.63; mass communication
journals, M = 4.41). Authors also rated JMCQ more positively for clarity (JMCQ, M =
4.75; mass communication journals, M = 4.56) and politeness of reviewers’ comments
(JMCQ, M = 4.96; mass communication journals, M = 4.72).
Authors rated JMCQ more negatively in terms of how helpful peer review was for the
reviewed manuscripts (JMCQ, M = 4.31; mass communication journals, M = 4.56), sub-
sequent manuscripts (JMCQ, M = 3.98; mass communication journals, M = 4.34), or
their scholarship as a whole (JMCQ, M = 4.32; mass communication journals, M = 4.62).
Comparing item means, however, tells only part of the story. Examining the per-
centage data contrasting JMCQ with “mass communication journals,” one discovers
that authors were more likely to “strongly agree” with eight out of thirteen individual
statements about JMCQ’s peer review process. However, there was also a signifi-
cantly larger percentage of respondents who strongly disagreed with the statements
that “JMCQ’s peer review process has enhanced my scholarship” (JMCQ, 18.8%;
mass communication journals, 10.6%) and “JMCQ reviewers’ comments have been
helpful in improving my subsequent work” (JMCQ, 23.0%; mass communication
journals, 12.7%) than the percentage who agreed.
RQ3 asked what individual characteristics and dimensions of the peer review pro-
cess best predict authors’ satisfaction with JMCQ’s peer review process. To answer
this question, bivariate correlations were examined (see Table 3) and then author sat-
isfaction with JMCQ’s peer review process was predicted using hierarchical regres-
sion. (Some individual characteristics were moderately or strongly correlated, for
example, age with years as a faculty member, and hours and percentage effort devoted
to research. To avoid redundancy in the models, only tenure status and time devoted
to research were used.)
Dependent measures in the models were the summed “Overall Satisfaction” (Model
3) and “Overall Bias” (Model 2) measures, and satisfaction with the time of the review
(Model 1). The first two models use as predictor individual characteristics and whether
the last manuscript was rejected (see Table 4). The third model used the individual
characteristics, whether the submission was rejected, and assessment of the time for
review and the overall bias score. Whether quantitative research was one’s preferred
approach was also used as a predictor because previous surveys raised the concern,
particularly among female respondents, that J/MC journals are biased against non-
quantitative methods.
As shown in Table 4, the first regression model predicted 10.3% of variance in
authors’ satisfaction with the time required to review their submission to JMCQ. Being

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2016

Watson and Riffe 11

Table 3.  Correlations (Pearson’s r) between Key Peer Review Variables and Author
Characteristics (Pairwise Deletion Used; No of cases = 267-325).

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. “Overall —  
Satisfaction”
with JMCQ
review
2. “Overall Bias” in .531** —  
JMCQ review
3. Satisfaction .480** .276** —  
with time to
complete review
4. JMCQ submission −.478** −.321** −.284** —  
rejecteda
5. Tenure statusb −.089 −.087 .096 −.039 —  
6. Hours per week −.005 .034 .064 −.001 −.131* —  
on research
7. Gender femalec .180** −.019 .161** −.018 −.088 −.011 —  
8. Non-quantitative −.161** −.268** −.059 .123* .034 −.165** −.005 —
preferredd

Note. JMCQ = Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly.

aDummy-coded; 1 = rejected, 0 = accepted or invited to revise and resubmit.
bDummy-coded; 1 = tenured, 2 = not tenured.
cDummy-coded; 1 = female, 0 = male.
dDummy-coded; 1 = qualitative or mixed-methods researcher; 0 = quantitative researcher.

*p < .05 level. **p < .01 level.

female (β = .158, p < .01) and tenured (β = .118, p < .05) predicted greater satisfaction
with the time for the review. Being tenured in particular may make an individual less
anxious/more patient to receive a peer review decision.
Having the submission rejected predicted an additional 6.4% of the variance in
authors’ satisfaction with the review time. Authors whose manuscripts were rejected
after the initial review were significantly less satisfied with the time it took to receive
that decision (β = −.253, p < .001), perhaps reflecting a preference for receiving even
a negative decision quickly to move on and resubmit the manuscript elsewhere.
The second regression model predicted 14.2% of variance in authors’ perceptions
that JMCQ’s peer review process is free of “Overall Bias.” Individual characteristics
predicted 5.5% of variance. Non-quantitative researchers were significantly less likely
to perceive the review process as unbiased (β = −.209, p < .001), a relationship that
merits expansion. Non-quantitative authors (60%) in the sample were in fact more
likely to report having their last article rejected by JMCQ than were quantitative
authors (40%), but that difference was not statistically significant, χ2(1, N = 317) =
3.174, p > .05.
However, if one uses t-tests to examine differences in computed “success rates”
over the past five years, quantitative researchers’ success rates for JMCQ are

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2016

12 Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(1)

Table 4.  Regression Models for Author Satisfaction with JMCQ’s Peer Review Process.

Dependent variables: JMCQ Overall

Satisfaction with review is satisfaction with
time to review unbiased JMCQ review
Predictor variables β β β
Individual characteristics R2 .039* .055*** .035*
  Female authora .158** .011 .101*
  Non-quantitative researcherb .028 −.209*** .018
 Hours per week dedicated to .048 −.011 −.050
research
  Tenured authorc .118* −.098 −.059
Dimensions of peer review ΔR2 .457***
 Satisfaction with time to complete .286***
review
  JMCQ review is unbiased .404***
Editorial decision ΔR2 .064*** .087*** .096***
  JMCQ manuscript rejectedd −.253*** −.295*** −.329***
Total R2 .103*** .142*** .587***
No. of cases 284 265 265

Note. Standardized betas. JMCQ = Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly.

aDummy-coded; 1 = female, 0 = male.
bDummy-coded; 1 = qualitative or mixed-methods researcher; 0 = quantitative researcher.
cDummy-coded; 1 = tenured, 2 = not tenured.
dDummy-coded; 1 = rejected, 0 = accepted or invited to revise and resubmit.

*p < .05. **p < .01 level. ***p < .001 level.

significantly higher (M = 0.424, SD = 0.423) than they are for non-quantitative

researchers (M = 0.245, SD = 0.383), t(1,313) = 3.954, p < .001. The opposite is true
for mass communication journals generally, quantitative M = 0.687, SD = 0.269; non-
quantitative M = 0.746, SD = 0.258; t(1,313) = −1.979, p < .05.
The outcome of the peer review process explained an additional 8.7% of the vari-
ance in authors’ perception that JMCQ’s peer review process is unbiased. Authors
whose manuscripts were rejected were significantly more likely to view the process as
biased (β = −.295, p < .001).
Finally, the third regression model predicted 58.7% of the variance in authors’
“Overall Satisfaction” with JMCQ’s peer review process. Individual characteristics
explained 3.5% of the variance. However, only author gender was significant: female
authors are more likely to be satisfied with the journal’s peer review process (β = .101,
p < .05).
Author satisfaction with the other dimensions of peer review—the length of the
review process and the lack of bias—was important, explaining an additional 45.7%
of variance in “Overall Satisfaction.” Satisfaction with time of review (β = .286, p <
.001) and perceived lack of bias (β = .404, p < .001) were both very positively associ-
ated with “Overall Satisfaction.”

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2016

Watson and Riffe 13

Table 5.  Gender Differences in Satisfaction with the Peer Review Process by Whether
Submission to JMCQ was Rejected (one-way ANOVAs).

Male accept/ Female accept/

revise and revise and Female
resubmita resubmitb Male rejectc rejectd F(total df )
Overall satisfaction 5.24c,d 5.50c,d 3.45a,b,d 4.14a,b,c 40.98*
with JMCQ peer
review
  SD 1.056 1.146 1.427 1.482 (290)
JMCQ peer review 5.21c,d 5.48c,d 3.14a,b,d 3.93a,b,c 37.71*
improved
manuscript
  SD 1.303 1.327 1.729 1.911 (311)
JMCQ peer review 4.60c,d 4.98c,d 3.08a,b,d 3.78a,b,c 22.873*
improved
subsequent work
  SD 1.379 1.488 1.730 1.734 (312)

Note. All variables were scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
Because of unequal variances, Games-Howell post hoc tests were used to test for significant mean
differences between groups; common subscripts indicate significant between-group mean differences in
rows. JMCQ = Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly; ANOVA = analysis of variance.
*Omnibus F significant at p ≤ .001.

Finally, whether an author’s manuscript was rejected explained an additional 9.6%

of variance; rejected authors were significantly less satisfied with the process (β =
−.329, p < .001).
We began this report by considering whether author gender would relate to percep-
tions of the peer review process. As shown above, female authors had more positive
perceptions of JMCQ’s peer review process: in Model 1, they were significantly more
likely to be satisfied with the time it took to review their manuscript (β = .158, p < .01),
and they were in Model 3 more satisfied overall (β = .101, p < .05). However, gender
was not significantly associated with Model 2 perceptions of bias in JMCQ’s peer
review process (β = .011, p > .05).
Given the significant effects of both gender and editorial decision, it makes sense
to probe further the relationship between these two variables. Table 5 examines gen-
der, acceptance or rejection, overall satisfaction with the peer review process, and
perceptions that the peer review process improved one’s work. A one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) shows a significant relationship among gender, manuscript accep-
tance/rejection, and overall satisfaction with the peer review process. Post hoc tests
show no significant difference in overall satisfaction between male (M = 5.24) and
female authors (M = 5.50) whose articles were accepted.
However, men who had articles rejected had a more negative reaction and were
significantly more negative in rating the peer review experience (M = 3.45) than their
female counterparts who were rejected (M = 4.14). Indeed, female authors who had
articles rejected were more likely than males who had articles rejected to say that the

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2016

14 Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(1)

JMCQ peer review process nonetheless improved their current manuscript (female,
M = 3.93; male, M = 3.14) and their subsequent work (female, M = 3.78; male, M = 3.08).

Conclusion
This study found that authors who have submitted to JMCQ in the past five years had
slightly more positive than negative attitudes toward the journal’s peer review process,
but that the review process was rated less positively for helping improve authors’ cur-
rent manuscripts or subsequent work. Data suggest that JMCQ’s peer review process
is not seen as particularly better or worse than the processes of other mass communica-
tion journals, except in two regards: as noted, JMCQ reviews are rated as somewhat
less helpful, but the journal’s reviews are perceived as clearer, more polite and profes-
sional, and certainly faster.
The regression analyses also show that whether an author’s previous submission to
JMCQ was rejected was consistently one of the strongest predictors of satisfaction
with the peer review process. Again, this finding raises troubling questions about the
perceptions of peer review as a hurdle rather than a means to improve one’s
scholarship.14
Rejection also related to perception of bias. Non-quantitative researchers were less
likely to perceive JMCQ’s peer review process as unbiased, and non-quantitative
researchers had significantly lower rates of success publishing in JMCQ, but signifi-
cantly higher rates of publishing success in other mass communication journals.
Women, however, actually rated the peer review process more positively, even
when the editorial decision was negative. Women who had their articles rejected were
significantly more satisfied with the peer review process and more likely to credit it
with a positive impact on current and subsequent research than were men who had
their last article rejected.
These gender differences are consistent with previous research on women’s
responses to evaluation that suggests that women internalize negative feedback (i.e.,
view a negative review as reflecting weaknesses in one’s manuscript) rather than
blaming others (i.e., reviewers) or external factors or processes,15 are more eager to
use negative evaluative feedback to improve future performance,16 and, if they receive
negative feedback, actually are more likely to improve subsequent performance than
are men who receive negative feedback.17
Of course, the results of this study cannot be generalized beyond the survey’s
respondents. The survey focused on authors who had submitted to a single journal,
and the authors were not randomly selected. Nonetheless, the data may be instructive
for those who review for mass communication journals and those who make reviewer
assignments. The data may also provide some context for authors submitting their
work for peer review. Furthermore, while this study was not set up as a theoretical
test of gender differences in response to evaluative feedback, it does suggest some
avenues for future research of potentially significant gender differences beyond con-
cerns of bias.

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2016

Watson and Riffe 15

Authors’ Note
This editorial report was not peer-reviewed. However, a longer version of the survey results was
reviewed and presented at a session sponsored by the Commission on the Status of Women at
the AEJMC conference in Chicago in August 2012.

Declaration of Conflicting Interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Notes
  1. Lutz Bornmann and Hans-Dieter Daniel, “The Effectiveness of the Peer Review Process:
Inter-Referee Agreement and Predictive Validity of Manuscript Refereeing at Angewandte
Chemie,” Angewandte Chemie 47 (38, 2008): 7173-78; Peter M. Rothwell and Christopher
N. Martyn, “Reproducibility of Peer Review in Clinical Neuroscience: Is Agreement
between Reviewers Any Greater than Would Be Expected by Chance Alone?” Brain 123
(9, 2000): 1964-69.
  2. Sara Schroter, Nick Black, Stephen Evans, Fiona Godlee, Lyda Osorio, and Richard Smith,
“What Errors Do Peer Reviewers Detect, and Does Training Improve Their Ability to
Detect Them?” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 101 (10, 2008): 507-14.
 3. Mark Henderson, “Problems with Peer Review,” British Medical Journal 340 (2010):
c1409.
 4. Gwendolyn B. Emerson, Winston J. Warme, Frederic W. Wolf, James D. Heckman,
Richard A. Brand, Seth S. Leopold, “Testing for the Presence of Positive-Outcome Bias
in Peer Review: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” Archives of Internal Medicine 170 (21,
2010): 1934-39; David Shatz, Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry (Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2004).
 5. Ann C. Weller, Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses (Medford, NJ:
Information Today, 2001).
  6. Nicholas H. Wolfinger, Mary A. Mason, and Marc Goulden, “Problems in the Pipeline:
Gender, Marriage, and Fertility in the Ivory Tower,” The Journal of Higher Education 79
(5, 2008): 388-405.
 7. Laura Padilla-González, Amy S. Metcalfe, Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes, Donald Fisher,
and Iain Snee, “Gender Gaps in North American Research Productivity: Examining
Faculty Publication Rates in Mexico, Canada, and the U.S.,” Compare: A Journal of
Comparative and International Education 41 (5, 2011): 649-68; Erin Leahey, “Gender
Differences in Productivity: Research Specialization as Missing Link,” Gender &
Society 20 (6, 2006): 754-80; Yu Xie and Kimberlee A. Shauman, “Sex Differences
in Research Productivity Revisited: New Evidence about an Old Puzzle,” American
Sociological Review 63 (6, 1998): 847-70.
  8. Michael Ryan, “Evaluating Scholarly Manuscripts in Journalism and Communications,”
Journalism Quarterly 59 (2, 1982): 273-85.

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2016

16 Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(1)

 9. Larry Z. Leslie, “Peer Review Practices of Mass Communication Scholarly Journals,”
Evaluation Review 14 (2, 1990): 151-65.
10. Paula Poindexter, “What’s Right and What’s Wrong with the Reviewing Process: AEJMC
Members Evaluate Peer and Tenure Review” (paper presented at the Meeting of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, San Francisco, CA,
August 2006).
11. Bobbie J. Sweitzer and David J. Cullen, “How Well Does a Journal’s Peer Review Process
Function?” Journal of American Medical Association 272 (2, 1994): 152-53; Ellen J.
Weber, Patricia P. Katz, Joseph F. Waeckerle, and Michael L. Callaham, “Impact of Review
Quality and Acceptance on Satisfaction,” Journal of American Medical Association 287
(21, 2002): 2790-93.
12. Sweitzer and Cullen, “How Well Does a Journal’s Peer Review Process Function?”
13. Poindexter, “What’s Right and What’s Wrong with the Reviewing Process”; Paula
Poindexter, “An Examination of AEJMC Member Perceptions of the Integrity of the
Competitive Paper Review Process” (paper presented at the Meeting of the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston, MA, August 2009); Sweitzer
and Cullen, “How Well Does a Journal’s Peer Review Process Function?”; Weber et
al., “Impact of Review Quality and Acceptance on Satisfaction”; Leslie, “Peer Review
Practices of Mass Communication Scholarly Journals.”
14. Sweitzer and Cullen, “How Well Does a Journal’s Peer Review Process Function?”
15. Angela J. Hirshy and Joseph R. Morris, “Individual Differences in Attributional Style:
The Relational Influence of Role Self-Efficacy, Self-Esteem, and Sex Role Identity,”
Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2, 2002): 183-96.
16. Maria Johnson and Vicki S. Helgeson, “Sex Differences in Response to Evaluative
Feedback: A Field Study,” Psychology of Women Quarterly 26 (3, 2002): 242-51.
17. Deidra J. Schleicher, Chad H. Van Iddekinge, Frederick P. Morgenson, and Michael A.
Campion, “If at First You Don’t Succeed, Try, Try, Again: Understanding Race, Age, and
Gender Differences in Retesting Score Improvement,” Journal of Applied Psychology 95
(4, 2010): 603-17.

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by guest on March 21, 2016