Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Donald Atkinson, M. Furlong, B. Wampold (1982)
Statistical significance, reviewer evaluations, and the scientific process: Is there a (statistically) significant relationship?Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29
C. Hendrick (1976)
Editorial commentPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2
R. Simon, Von Bakanic, C. Mcphail (1986)
Who Complains to Journal Editors and What HappensSociological Inquiry, 56
S. Bloch, C. Martinoya (1982)
Comparing frontal and lateral viewing in the pigeon. I. Tachistoscopic visual acuity as a function of distanceBehavioural Brain Research, 5
D. Horrobin (1990)
The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation.JAMA, 263 10
Paul Friedman (1990)
Correcting the literature following fraudulent publication.JAMA, 263 10
(1979)
Creative disagreement
B. W. Speck (1993)
Publication Peer Review
J. Gans, G. Shepherd (1994)
How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading EconomistsJournal of Economic Perspectives, 8
P. Tetlock, J. Kim (1987)
Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task.Journal of personality and social psychology, 52 4
A. Gilchrist (1986)
Long‐range forecastingQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 112
D. King, D. McDonald, N. Roderer (1981)
Scientific journals in the United States: Their production, use, and economics
(1990)
Monitoring Scholarly Journal Publication in Political Science: The Role of the APSRPS: Political Science & Politics, 23
G. Taubes (1994)
Peer review in cyberspace.Science, 266 5187
C. Henley (1977)
Peer review of research grant applications at the National Institutes of Health 3: review by an advisory board/council.Federation proceedings, 36 10
(1993)
Publication Peer Review. Westport, Connecticut
D. Christiansen (1978)
The perils of publishingIEEE Spectrum, 15
L. Hargens (1990)
Variation in journal peer review systems. Possible causes and consequences.JAMA, 263 10
D. Horrobin (1982)
Peer review: A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous for scienceBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 5
Lain Chalmers (1990)
Underreporting research is scientific misconduct.JAMA, 263 10
T. Chalmers, Cynthia Frank, D. Reitman (1990)
Minimizing the three stages of publication bias.JAMA, 263 10
Reza Baraheni (1978)
The perils of publishingIndex on Censorship, 7
(1994)
Clinical Psychology Publishing Co
Gordon Murray (1988)
The task of a statistical refereeBritish Journal of Surgery, 75
D. Mccloskey (1996)
The Standard Error of Regressions
J. Kupfersmid, D. Wonderly (1994)
An Author's Guide to Publishing Better Articles in Better Journals in the Behavioral Sciences
W. Fagan (1990)
To Accept or Reject: Peer Review.The Journal of Educational Thought, 24
James Evans, Howard Nadjari, Sherry Burchell (1990)
Quotational and reference accuracy in surgical journals. A continuing peer review problem.JAMA, 263 10
S. Lock, J. Smith (1990)
What do peer reviewers do?JAMA, 263 10
Douglas Peters, S. Ceci (1982)
Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted againBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 5
A. Meinel (1979)
Cloudy Days Ahead for Solar EnergySciences-new York, 19
Stephen Juhasz, Earl Calvert, Tom Jackson, D. Kronick, Joseph Shipman (1975)
Acceptance and rejection of manuscriptsIEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, PC-18
R. H. Franke, T. W. Edlund, F. Oster (1990)
The development of strategic management: Journal quality and article impactStrategic Management Journal, 11
T. Sterling (1959)
Publication Decisions and their Possible Effects on Inferences Drawn from Tests of Significance—or Vice VersaJournal of the American Statistical Association, 54
A. Yankauer (1985)
Peering at peer reviewCBE Views, 8
Arthur Stamps (1997)
Using a dialectical scientific brief in peer reviewScience and Engineering Ethics, 3
J. Wilson (1978)
Peer review and publication. Presidential address before the 70th annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Investigation, San Francisco, California, 30 April 1978.The Journal of clinical investigation, 61 6
D. Lindsey (1978)
The Scientific Publication System In Social Science
Arthur Stamps (1997)
Advances in peer review research: an introductionScience and Engineering Ethics, 3
Marian Marry (1994)
An Author's Guide to Publishing Better Articles in Better Journals in the Behavioral Sciences.Psyccritiques, 39
J. Armstrong, R. Hubbard (1991)
Does the need for agreement among reviewers inhibit the publication controversial findings?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14
C. Hendrick (1975)
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin: Editorial CommentPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1
J. Rushton, C. Davison, Ankney, Wethank Hunt, D. Jackson, A. Jensen, Sheri Johnson, P. Kyl-Lonen, H. III, E. Tulving, L. Wickett, Willerman, Rushton (1996)
Brain size and cognitive ability: Correlations with age, sex, social class, and racePsychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3
W. DeWald, Jerry Thursby, R. Anderson (1986)
Replication in Empirical Economics: The Journal of Money, Credit and Banking ProjectThe American Economic Review, 76
If the paper was based on an experiment or quasi-experiment, an ?X@ follows the ?E.@ If an author of this paper replied to my request for information about the coding
J. Bradley (1981)
Pernicious publication practicesBulletin of the psychonomic society, 18
R. Hubbard, J. Armstrong (1994)
Replications and Extensions in Marketing - Rarely Published But Quite ContraryWharton School: Marketing (Topic)
J. M. Campanario (1995)
On influential books and journal articles initially rejected because of negative referees’ evaluationsScience Communication, 16
S. Kerr, J. Tolliver, Doretta Petree (1977)
Manuscript Characteristics Which Influence Acceptance for Management and Social Science JournalsAcademy of Management Journal, 20
R. Blank (1991)
The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic ReviewThe American Economic Review, 81
J. S. Armstrong (1996)
Management folklore and management science: On portfolio planning, escalation bias, and such (with commentaries)Interfaces, 26
T. Kuhn, David Hawkins (1963)
The Structure of Scientific RevolutionsAmerican Journal of Physics, 31
J. Armstrong, Scott Armstrong (1980)
Unintelligible Management Research and Academic PrestigeInterfaces, 10
I. Spiegel-Rosing (1977)
Science Studies: Bibliometric and Content AnalysisSocial Studies of Science, 7
W. Epstein (1990)
Confirmational Response Bias Among Social Work JournalsScience, Technology & Human Values, 15
B. Barber (1961)
Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery.Science, 134 3479
(1996)
Psychologists debate accuracy of significance test
B. Hibbitts (1996)
Yesterday Once More: Skeptics, Scribes and the Demise of Law Reviews, 30
M. Macnealy (1994)
Publishing in Technical Communication Journals from the Successful Author's Point of View.Technical Communication: Journal of the Society for Technical Communication, 41
P. Eichorn, A. Yankauer (1987)
Do authors check their references? A survey of accuracy of references in three public health journals.American journal of public health, 77 8
S. Pressman (1994)
Simultaneous Multiple Journal Submissions: The Case AgainstThe American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 53
R. Simon, V. Bakanic, C. McPhail (1986)
Who complains to editors and what happensSociological Inquiry, 56
Scott Fuess (1996)
On Replications in Business and Economics Research: The QJBE Case, 35
Jacob Cohen (1994)
The earth is round (p < .05)American Psychologist, 49
S. Gottfredson (1978)
Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments.American Psychologist, 33
M. Cho, L. Bero (1996)
The Quality of Drug Studies Published in Symposium ProceedingsAnnals of Internal Medicine, 124
A. Weller (1984)
Betrayers of the TruthJAMA, 251
B. Hibbitts (1996)
Last Writes? Re-Assessing the Law Review in the Age of Cyberspace
(1989)
PNAS publication of AIDS article spurs debate over peer review
E. Garfield, A. Welljams-Dorof (1990)
The impact of fraudulent research on the scientific literatureJournal of the American Medical Association, 263
I. Spiegel-Rosing (1977)
Bibliometric and content analysisSocial Studies of Science, 7
H. Rodman, J. Mancini (1977)
Editors, manuscripts, and equal treatmentResearch in Higher Education, 7
P. Munley, Bruce Sharkin, C. Gelso (1988)
Reviewer Ratings and Agreement on Manuscripts Reviewed for the Journal of Counseling Psychology.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35
(1996)
The persistence of management folklore
H. Holub, G. Tappeiner, Veronika Eberharter (1991)
The Iron Law of Important ArticlesSouthern Economic Journal, 58
R. Mcnutt, A. Evans, R. Fletcher, S. Fletcher (1990)
The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.JAMA, 263 10
D. Shapere (1964)
The Structure of Scientific RevolutionsThe Philosophical Review, 73
P. Abrams (1991)
The Predictive Ability of Peer Review of Grant Proposals: The Case of Ecology and the US National Science FoundationSocial Studies of Science, 21
Von Bakanic, C. Mcphail, R. Simon (1990)
If at first you don’t succeed: Review procedures for revised and resubmitted manuscriptsThe American Sociologist, 21
S. Lock, J. Smith (1986)
Peer review at workScholarly Publishing, 17
D. Perlman (1982)
Reviewer “bias”: Do Peters and Ceci protest too much?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5
H. L. Roediger (1987)
Scientific Excellence
J. Campanario (1995)
Commentary: On Influential Books and Journal Articles Initially Rejected Because of Negative Referees' EvaluationsScience Communication, 16
S. Abramowitz, B. Gomes, C. Abramowitz (1975)
Publish or Politic: Referee Bias in Manuscript Review1Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5
R. Lau (1994)
AN ANALYSIS OF THE ACCURACY OF “TRIAL HEAT” POLLS DURING THE 1992 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONPublic Opinion Quarterly, 58
D. Salsburg (1985)
The Religion of Statistics as Practiced in Medical JournalsThe American Statistician, 39
Michael Szenberg (1994)
Disseminating Scholarly Output: The Case for Eliminating the Exclusivity of Journal SubmissionsThe American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 53
A. Greenwald (1975)
Consequences of Prejudice Against the Null HypothesisPsychological Bulletin, 82
T. Sterling, W. Rosenbaum, J. Weinkam (1995)
Publication decisions revisited: the effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to p
William Gray (1979)
Long-Range Forecasting.Contemporary Sociology, 8
B. Commoner (1978)
Peering at peer review.Hospital practice, 13 11
C. Jones (1983)
Scientific Journals in the United States: Their Production, Use, and EconomicsBulletin of The Medical Library Association, 71
J. Fellers (1996)
People Skills: Using the Cooperative Learning Model to Teach Students “People Skills”Interfaces, 26
M. Mahoney (1977)
Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review systemCognitive Therapy and Research, 1
Mark Pfeifer, Gwendolyn Snodgrass (1990)
The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature.JAMA, 263 10
R. Davidson (1986)
Source of funding and outcome of clinical trialsJournal of General Internal Medicine, 1
J. Rowney, Thomas Zenisek (1980)
Manuscript characteristics influencing reviewers' decisions.Canadian Psychology, 21
Herbert Needleman (1992)
Salem comes to the National Institutes of Health: notes from inside the crucible of scientific integrity.Pediatrics, 90 6
R. Smart (1964)
The importance of negative results in psychological research.Canadian Psychologist\/psychologie Canadienne
R. Newcombe (1987)
Towards a reduction in publication bias.British Medical Journal (Clinical research ed.), 295
N. Wade (1976)
IQ and Heredity: Suspicion of Fraud Beclouds Classic Experiment.Science, 194 4268
E. Garfield, A. Welljams-Dorof (1990)
The impact of fraudulent research on the scientific literature. The Stephen E. Breuning case.JAMA, 263 10
H. Marsh, S. Ball (1989)
The Peer Review Process Used to Evaluate Manuscripts Submitted to Academic Journals: Interjudgmental ReliabilityJournal of Experimental Education, 57
H. Arkes, R. Franke (1996)
The Ombudsman: Management Folklore and Management Science-On Portfolio Planning, Escalation Bias, and SuchInterfaces, 26
R. Franke, T. Edlund, Frederick Oster (1990)
RESEARCH NOTES AND COMMUNICATIONS THE DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT: JOURNAL QUALITY AND ARTICLE IMPACT
R. Hubbard, J. Armstrong, R. Bagozzi, Gilbert Churchill, J. Engel, J. Farley, A. Greenwald, Daniel (1992)
Are null results becoming an endangered species in marketing?Marketing Letters, 3
H. Dudley (1985)
Peer review at workBritish Medical Journal (Clinical research ed.), 290
W. Stewart, N. Feder (1987)
The integrity of the scientific literatureNature, 325
J. Armstrong (1982)
Barriers to scientific contributions: The author's formulaBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 5
Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control
L. Goodstein, K. Brazis (1970)
Credibility of psychologists: An empirical studyPsychological Reports, 27
Alfred Yankauer (1990)
Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review?JAMA, 263 10
D. Cicchetti (1991)
The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigationBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 14
S. Patterson, Donald Tannenbaum, Martin Slann, Donald Wells, Bernard Schechterman (1990)
An Author's Guide to State Political Science JournalsPS: Political Science & Politics, 23
T. D. Sterling, W. L. Rosenbaum, J. J. Weinkam (1995)
Publication decisions revisited: The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versaAmerican Statistician, 49
Margaret Lloyd (1990)
Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication.Journal of applied behavior analysis, 23 4
Lawrence Jauch, J. Wall (1989)
WHAT THEY DO WHEN THEY GET YOUR MANUSCRIPT: A SURVEY OF ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEWER PRACTICESAcademy of Management Journal, 32
J. D. Wilson (1978)
Peer review and publicationJournal of Clinical Investigation, 61
D. Weiss (1989)
An Experiment in Publication: Advance Publication ReviewApplied Psychological Measurement, 13
C. Begg, J. Berlin (1988)
Publication bias : a problem in interpreting medical dataJournal of The Royal Statistical Society Series A-statistics in Society, 151
D. F. Horrobin (1982)
A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous for scienceBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 5
John Garcia (1981)
Tilting at the Paper Mills of AcademeAmerican Psychologist, 36
R. Hubbard, Daniel Vetter (1996)
An empirical comparison of published replication research in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketingJournal of Business Research, 35
R. Fletcher, S. Fletcher (1997)
Evidence for the effectiveness of peer reviewScience and Engineering Ethics, 3
J. Koehler (1993)
The Influence of Prior Beliefs on Scientific Judgments of Evidence QualityOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56
Donald Christiansen (1978)
Spectral lines: The perils of publishingIEEE Spectrum, 15
J. Beyer, R. Chanove, William Fox (1995)
The Review Process and the Fates of Manuscripts Submitted to AMJAcademy of Management Journal, 38
(1987)
The role of journal editors in the scientific process
D. Horrobin (1996)
Peer review of grant applications: a harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research?The Lancet, 348
L. Goodstein, Karen Brazis (1970)
Psychology of Scientist: XXX. Credibility of Psychologists: An Empirical StudyPsychological Reports, 27
This paper reviews the published empirical evidence concerning journal peer review consisting of 68 papers, all but three published since 1975. Peer review improves quality, but its use to screen papers has met with limited success. Current procedures to assure quality and fairness seem to discourage scientific advancement, especially important innovations, because findings that conflict with current beliefs are often judged to have defects. Editors can use procedures to encourage the publication of papers with innovative findings such as invited papers, early-acceptance procedures, author nominations of reviewers, structured rating sheets, open peer review, results-blind review, and, in particular, electronic publication. Some journals are currently using these procedures. The basic principle behind the proposals is to change the decision from whether to publish a paper to how to publish it.
Science and Engineering Ethics – Springer Journals
Published: Feb 28, 1997
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.