Abstract
Purpose: To determine whether papers contributed by National Academy of Sciences (NAS) members perform differently than direct submissions.
Data/Methods: 55,889 original papers published in PNAS from 1997 through 2014. Regression analysis measuring total citations, controlling for editorial track (Contributed, Direct, Communicated), date of publication, and paper topic.
Main findings: Contributed papers consistently underperformed against Direct submissions, receiving 9% fewer citations, ceteris paribus. The effect was greatest for Social Sciences papers (12% fewer citations). Nonetheless, the main effect has attenuated over the past decade, from 13.6% fewer citations in 2005 to just 2.2% fewer citations in 2014.
Significance: Successive editorial policies placing limits, restrictions, and other qualifications on the publication privileges of NAS members may be responsible for the submission of better performing Contributed papers.
