Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Figure 2 shows how the
the 20/40 best authors obta
issue. As the weight given
who accumulate the best
track-record weight increas
when the weight reaches ab
40 increases the proportion
track by only 10-20%.
e weight given to track record influences the percentage
aining the 20/40 highest track records by the 100
th
jour
n to track record increases, the percentage of best auth
track records declines. This reduction accelerates as
se beyond about 0.2 and reaches an asymptotic minim
bout 0.7. Doubling the number of publications from 20
n of the 20/40 best authors among those with the 20/40 b
e of
rnal
hors
the
mum
0 to
best
100%
90%
20,.75,.75
20,.75,.50
20,.50,.75
5
0
5
80%
70%
60%
50%
20,.50,.50
40,.75,.75
40,.75,.50
40,.50,.75
40,.50,.50
0
40%
5
30%
0
20%
5
10%
0
0%
0 .1 .2 .
.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
true
legend: npub,rttq,rtjq (numbe
manuscript quality, correlation
er of articles published, correlation between talent and
n between true and judged manuscript quality)
Fig. 2.
Average percentage o
different track-record weights
of the most talented authors accruing the best track records
(0.0 - 0.9)
s for
Finally, Figure 3 show
percentage of the 20 (40) a
best 20 (40) track record
importance of track record
of the first round of the m
rounds. Indeed, once the we
published second and subs
the first round. Only impe
and between true and judge
- until the weight of reputat
ws how the weight given track record influences
authors published in the first journal issue who accrue
ds by the 100
th
journal issue. Not surprisingly, as
in choosing manuscripts for publication increases, winn
manuscript competition are more likely to win subsequ
eight given track record reaches about 0.7, almost 100%
sequent journal-issue authors are the authors published
erfect correlations between talent and manuscript qual
ed quality, allow new authors to publish after the first is
tion vitiates the effects of these imperfections as well.
the
the
the
ners
uent
% of
d in
lity,
ssue
