ON JOURNAL EDITING AS A PROBABILISTIC PROCESS.

The process of evaluating papers for journal publication is a measurement process, similar to the other measurement processes of qualitative material in the social sciences. A good qualitative measurement technique rarely has a reliability coefficient of more than about 0.50 i.e., a correlation of 0.50 of one measurement with another measurement by the same technique. The square root of the reliability of a measure is the upper limit of its validity. If it is assumed that journal editing as a measurement process is as good as good qualitative measurement can possibly be, given this experience in the social sciences it would estimate the validity of a judgment of article quality to be about 0.70. The two major journals in Sociology accept about 16 per cent of the papers submitted to them. If the quality of papers judged is approximately normal, then one can say that papers judged to be 1 standard deviation or more above the mean of papers submitted will be accepted. Assuming a correlation of 0.70 between the true quality of the paper and the judged quality, one can estimate the proportion of acceptances of papers of different quality.