<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
 xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel><title>Short Term Memory Research | Comments</title><description>Blog about short term memory research</description><link>http://radburn.avabiz.com/Short Term Memory.nsf/</link><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 04:52:03 AM -0400</lastBuildDate>
<item>
<title>Why do journals like lots of references?</title>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 04:52:03 AM -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Eugen Tarnow</dc:creator>
<dc:subject>Why do journals like lots of references?</dc:subject>
<description><![CDATA[I thank the Editor for that posting. <br /><br />Some researchers get many more citations than others and in many cases I can think of the difference is not based on the scholarly content of the articles. <br /><br />One reason is that authors find it rewarding to pay homage to the more powerful in the field (perhaps explaining why the Atkinson & Shiffrin paper mentioned elsewhere in the blog has more than 3000 citations). <br /><br />The Editor's posting suggests another reason: if an author only cites friends, the editor is likely to send the manuscript for a friendly review. Referencing an academic enemy would make the acceptance much more chancy. Those authors who reference only friends is then more likely to be successful.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[I thank the Editor for that posting. <br /><br />Some researchers get many more citations than others and in many cases I can think of the difference is not based on the scholarly content of the articles. <br /><br />One reason is that authors find it rewarding to pay homage to the more powerful in the field (perhaps explaining why the Atkinson & Shiffrin paper mentioned elsewhere in the blog has more than 3000 citations). <br /><br />The Editor's posting suggests another reason: if an author only cites friends, the editor is likely to send the manuscript for a friendly review. Referencing an academic enemy would make the acceptance much more chancy. Those authors who reference only friends is then more likely to be successful.]]></content:encoded>
<link>http://radburn.avabiz.com/Short Term Memory.nsf/dx/06052010115052PMEGT6JB.htm?opendocument&amp;comments#10152010045203AMRINCEL.htm</link>
</item>
<item>
<title>Why do journals like lots of references?</title>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 04:36:38 AM -0400</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Editor</dc:creator>
<dc:subject>Why do journals like lots of references?</dc:subject>
<description><![CDATA[As the Clinical Editor of X, I have some sympathy with the editor that rejected your manuscript. I get many manuscripts to review, and there is no compensation from the journal for my work. I must admit that I prefer to see my work cited, and I have recommended my articles to an occasional author. It takes me at least 30 minutes to set up a good review for a manuscript, including a quick read and a review of the references. Then, I go through those references, PubMed, and my own memory in an effort to find about 10 good reviewers (it is much harded if there are few references in the paper). I usually get about 4 out of 10 reviewers to give a review. The reviewers vote, and when they all vote the same, my job is very easy. When there are major discrepancies, the job gets more difficult. So, there really is a voting process involved, but then I have to make the final decision. I am a quite difficult editor and frequently ask for at least 2 revisions, based mostly on the comments of the reviewers and even second and third reviews, but I have a fairly high rate of acceptance, over 70%.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[As the Clinical Editor of X, I have some sympathy with the editor that rejected your manuscript. I get many manuscripts to review, and there is no compensation from the journal for my work. I must admit that I prefer to see my work cited, and I have recommended my articles to an occasional author. It takes me at least 30 minutes to set up a good review for a manuscript, including a quick read and a review of the references. Then, I go through those references, PubMed, and my own memory in an effort to find about 10 good reviewers (it is much harded if there are few references in the paper). I usually get about 4 out of 10 reviewers to give a review. The reviewers vote, and when they all vote the same, my job is very easy. When there are major discrepancies, the job gets more difficult. So, there really is a voting process involved, but then I have to make the final decision. I am a quite difficult editor and frequently ask for at least 2 revisions, based mostly on the comments of the reviewers and even second and third reviews, but I have a fairly high rate of acceptance, over 70%.]]></content:encoded>
<link>http://radburn.avabiz.com/Short Term Memory.nsf/dx/06052010115052PMEGT6JB.htm?opendocument&amp;comments#10152010043638AMRINC4X.htm</link>
</item>

</channel></rss>

