The Experts below are selected from a list of 8337 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Mohit Bhandari - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Nonscientific factors associated with acceptance for publication in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume).
The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 2008Co-Authors: Kanu Okike, Mininder S. Kocher, Charles T. Mehlman, James D. Heckman, Mohit BhandariAbstract:Background: While it is widely accepted that scientific factors may render a study more likely to be accepted for publication, it is less clear whether nonscientific factors may also be associated with publication. The purpose of this study was to identify the nonscientific factors associated with acceptance for publication by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume). Methods: A total of 1173 manuscripts submitted to The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery between January 1, 2004, and June 30, 2005, for publication as scientific articles were analyzed as part of a study on publication bias in the Editorial Decision-making process. Information was collected on nonscientific factors plausibly associated with acceptance for publication, including study location, conflict-of-interest disclosure, sex of the author, primary language, and the number of prior publications by the corresponding author in frequently cited orthopaedic journals. The final disposition term (acceptance or rejection) was recorded, and logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with acceptance for publication. Results: Manuscripts from countries other than the United States or Canada were significantly less likely to be accepted (odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.92; p = 0.026). Factors positively associated with acceptance for publication were conflict-of-interest disclosure involving a nonprofit entity (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.35 to 2.73; p < 0.001) and ten or more prior publications in frequently cited orthopaedic journals by the corresponding author (odds ratio, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.33 to 3.05; p = 0.001). We did not find a significant association between acceptance and conflict-of-interest disclosure involving a for-profit company, sex of the corresponding author, or primary language. Conclusions: Manuscripts submitted to The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery were more likely to be accepted if they were from the United States or Canada, reported a conflict of interest related to a nonprofit entity, or were authored by an individual with ten or more prior publications in frequently cited orthopaedic journals.
Georg Heinze - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
predicting future citation counts of scientific manuscripts submitted for publication a cohort study in transplantology
Transplant International, 2019Co-Authors: Michael Kossmeier, Georg HeinzeAbstract:Citations are widely used for measuring scientific impact. The goal of the present study was to predict citation counts of manuscripts submitted to Transplant International (TI) in the two calendar years following publication. We considered a comprehensive set of 21 manuscript, author, and peer-review-related predictor variables available early in the peer-review process. We also evaluated how successfully the peer-review process at TI identified and accepted the most promising manuscripts for publication. A developed predictive model with nine selected variables showed acceptable test performance to identify often cited articles (AUROC = 0.685). Particularly important predictors were the number of pages, month of publication, publication type (review versus other), and study on humans (yes versus no). Accepted manuscripts at TI were cited more often than rejected but elsewhere published manuscripts (median 4 vs. 2 citations). The predictive model did not outperform the actual Editorial Decision. Both findings suggest that the peer-review process at TI, in its current form, was successful in selecting submitted manuscripts with a high scientific impact in the future. Predictive models might have the potential to support the review process when Decisions are made under great uncertainty.
Toni M Whited - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
are financial constraints priced evidence from textual analysis
Review of Financial Studies, 2018Co-Authors: Matthias M M Buehlmaier, Toni M WhitedAbstract:We construct novel measures of financial constraints using textual analysis of firms’ annual reports and investigate their impact on stock returns. Our three measures capture access to equity markets, debt markets, and external financial markets in general. In all cases, constrained firms earn higher returns, which move together and cannot be explained by the Fama and French (2015) factor model. A trading strategy based on financial constraints is most profitable for large, liquid stocks. Our results are strongest when we consider debt constraints. A portfolio based on this measure earns an annualized risk-adjusted excess return of 6.5%. Received April 4, 2016; Editorial Decision December 17, 2017 by Editor Andrew Karolyi. Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix, which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online.
-
estimating and testing dynamic corporate finance models
Review of Financial Studies, 2018Co-Authors: Santiago Bazdresch, Jay R Kahn, Toni M WhitedAbstract:We assess the finite sample performance of simulation estimators that are used to estimate the parameters of dynamic corporate finance models. We formulate an external validity specification test and propose a new set of statistical benchmarks that can be used to estimate and evaluate these models. These benchmarks are based on model policy functions. Our Monte Carlo simulations show that the estimators are largely unbiased with low root mean squared errors. When computed with an optimal weight matrix, the specification tests associated with the estimators are close to correctly sized. These tests have excellent power to detect misspecification. Received August 19, 2016; Editorial Decision May 30, 2017 by Editor Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh.
Matthias M M Buehlmaier - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
are financial constraints priced evidence from textual analysis
Review of Financial Studies, 2018Co-Authors: Matthias M M Buehlmaier, Toni M WhitedAbstract:We construct novel measures of financial constraints using textual analysis of firms’ annual reports and investigate their impact on stock returns. Our three measures capture access to equity markets, debt markets, and external financial markets in general. In all cases, constrained firms earn higher returns, which move together and cannot be explained by the Fama and French (2015) factor model. A trading strategy based on financial constraints is most profitable for large, liquid stocks. Our results are strongest when we consider debt constraints. A portfolio based on this measure earns an annualized risk-adjusted excess return of 6.5%. Received April 4, 2016; Editorial Decision December 17, 2017 by Editor Andrew Karolyi. Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix, which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online.
Kanu Okike - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Nonscientific factors associated with acceptance for publication in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume).
The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 2008Co-Authors: Kanu Okike, Mininder S. Kocher, Charles T. Mehlman, James D. Heckman, Mohit BhandariAbstract:Background: While it is widely accepted that scientific factors may render a study more likely to be accepted for publication, it is less clear whether nonscientific factors may also be associated with publication. The purpose of this study was to identify the nonscientific factors associated with acceptance for publication by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume). Methods: A total of 1173 manuscripts submitted to The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery between January 1, 2004, and June 30, 2005, for publication as scientific articles were analyzed as part of a study on publication bias in the Editorial Decision-making process. Information was collected on nonscientific factors plausibly associated with acceptance for publication, including study location, conflict-of-interest disclosure, sex of the author, primary language, and the number of prior publications by the corresponding author in frequently cited orthopaedic journals. The final disposition term (acceptance or rejection) was recorded, and logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with acceptance for publication. Results: Manuscripts from countries other than the United States or Canada were significantly less likely to be accepted (odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.92; p = 0.026). Factors positively associated with acceptance for publication were conflict-of-interest disclosure involving a nonprofit entity (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.35 to 2.73; p < 0.001) and ten or more prior publications in frequently cited orthopaedic journals by the corresponding author (odds ratio, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.33 to 3.05; p = 0.001). We did not find a significant association between acceptance and conflict-of-interest disclosure involving a for-profit company, sex of the corresponding author, or primary language. Conclusions: Manuscripts submitted to The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery were more likely to be accepted if they were from the United States or Canada, reported a conflict of interest related to a nonprofit entity, or were authored by an individual with ten or more prior publications in frequently cited orthopaedic journals.
