Reviewer opinions versus subsequent citations: a little data

Nowadays, before discarding material I try to extract interesting data. Here are two related pieces on the theme of reviewer opinions versus subsequent citations of research papers.


Data regarding my own reports as Associate Editor

This data is from Associate Editor reports written by myself in the years stated, with Google Scholar citation counts from a recent year.


Ann. Probability EJP/ECP EJP/ECP RS&A
Year of report 1996 1999 - 2003 2004 - 2006 2001 - 2012 (parts)
Year of citation count 2012 2014 2016 2017
Acceptance rate 22% = 7/32 56% = 14/25 59% = 17/29 52% = 15/29
rejected; never published 2 2 4 9
published elsewhere; < 20 citations 15 7 7 4
published elsewhere; > 20 citations 8 2 1 1
(citation counts for above) (53 45 30 29 28 23 23 23) (40 34) (73) (57)
accepted; < 20 citations 0 5 12 10
accepted; > 20 citations 7 9 5 5
(citation counts for above) (470 85 67 45 29 22 22 ) (71 64 50 38 37 30 22 22 20) (67 51 37 34 29) (126 72 61 31 31)

Data regarding my own reports as referee

This data is from paper files of old referee reports written by myself. The table relates "enthusiasm of my report", on a scale of 1 (poor) to 2 (average published paper) to 3 (excellent), and this is compared to subsequent Google Scholar citations.

Reports written 1992 - 1995; citations to 2007.
0 - 9 citations 10 - 19 citations 20 - 49 citations 50+ citations
enthusiasm
1 4 0 0 0
1+ 6 0 0 0
2- 11 1 0 0
2 5 0 1 0
2+ 2 2 0 0
3- 0 0 2 0
3 0 0 2 2
Reports written 1998 - 2000; citations to 2017.
0 - 9 citations 10 - 19 citations 20 - 49 citations 50+ citations
enthusiasm
1 2 0 0 0
1+ 4 1 0 0
2- 5 3 3 0
2 1 0 5 0
2+ 0 1 4 2
3- 0 0 0 1