MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125397531

Submission Fees and Response Times in Academic Publishing

2013· article· en· W3125397531 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Cotton

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingQuality (philosophy)PreferenceActuarial scienceComputer scienceEconomicsBusinessOperations researchPolitical scienceMicroeconomicsEngineeringLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both submission fees and response times impose costs on authors who submit their articles for review at a journal. Moderate submission costs can discourage the submission of articles with low probability of acceptance, without discouraging submissions from articles with higher probability of acceptance. Our paper incorporates author preference heterogeneity into the article submission game. When authors have heterogeneous preferences, there is a unique combination of a positive fee and time delay that maximizes journal quality: Journal quality is maximized through a combination of both moderate fees and moderate delays.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.156
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.156
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.013
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainIncentives
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicConsumer Market Behavior and PricingFrench-language works237,207