Polychronopoulou, Argy Pandis, Nikolaos and Eliades, Theodore 2010. Assessment of Publication Bias in Dental Specialty Journals. Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice, Vol. 10, Issue. 4, p. 207.
Child, Irvin L. 1987. Observation versus theory in parapsychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 10, Issue. 04, p. 577.
Fogarty, Timothy and Ravenscroft, Sue 2000. MAKING ACCOUNTING KNOWLEDGE: PEERING AT POWER. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 11, Issue. 4, p. 409.
Sanford, C.C. 1991. Augmenting the gatekeeper's role: a decision support system for a journal editor. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 34, Issue. 3, p. 140.
Sala, Sergio Della and Grafman, Jordan 2002. Refereeing Mortus Est, Vivat Refereeing. Cortex, Vol. 38, Issue. 3, p. 269.
Shadish, William 1989. Science evaluation: A glossary of possible contents. Social Epistemology, Vol. 3, Issue. 3, p. 189.
Weller, Ann C. 1995. Editorial Peer Review: Research, Current Practices, and Implications for Librarians. Serials Review, Vol. 21, Issue. 1, p. 53.
Redner, Harry 1987. Pathologies of science. Social Epistemology, Vol. 1, Issue. 3, p. 215.
Viner, Neil Powell, Philip and Green, Rod 2004. Institutionalized biases in the award of research grants: a preliminary analysis revisiting the principle of accumulative advantage. Research Policy, Vol. 33, Issue. 3, p. 443.
CANAGARAJAH, A. SURESH 1996. “Nondiscursive” Requirements in Academic Publishing, Material Resources of Periphery Scholars, and the Politics of Knowledge Production. Written Communication, Vol. 13, Issue. 4, p. 435.
Fletcher, Jack M. 1991. Journal availability and the quality of published research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 14, Issue. 01, p. 146.
Smith, Richard 2010. Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Research, Vol. 12, Issue. S4,
Fuller, Steve 1991. Peer review is not enough: Editors must work with librarians to ensure access to research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 14, Issue. 01, p. 147.
Harwood, Nigel and Hadley, Gregory 2004. Demystifying institutional practices: critical pragmatism and the teaching of academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 23, Issue. 4, p. 355.
Adams, Kenneth M. 1991. Peer review: An unflattering picture. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 14, Issue. 01, p. 135.
Clark, Timothy and Wright, Mike 2007. Reviewing Journal Rankings and Revisiting Peer Reviews: Editorial Perspectives. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 44, Issue. 4, p. 612.
Moore, Samuel Neylon, Cameron Paul Eve, Martin Paul O’Donnell, Daniel and Pattinson, Damian 2017. “Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence. Palgrave Communications, Vol. 3, p. 16105.
Suls, Jerry and Martin, René 2009. The Air We Breathe: A Critical Look at Practices and Alternatives in the Peer-Review Process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 4, Issue. 1, p. 40.
Andersen, Line Edslev 2017. On the Nature and Role of Peer Review in Mathematics. Accountability in Research, Vol. 24, Issue. 3, p. 177.
Manske, Paul R. 1997. A review of peer review. The Journal of Hand Surgery, Vol. 22, Issue. 5, p. 767.
Glymour, Clark 1987. ESP and the Big Stuff. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 10, Issue. 04, p. 590.
Cook, Bryan G. 2014. A Call for Examining Replication and Bias in Special Education Research. Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 35, Issue. 4, p. 233.
Cole, Stephen 1991. Consensus and the reliability of peer-review evaluations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 14, Issue. 01, p. 140.
Bakanic, Von McPhail, Clark and Simon, Rita J. 1989. MIXED MESSAGES. Referees' Comments on the Manuscripts They Review. The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 30, Issue. 4, p. 639.
Tart, Charles T. 1987. Is searching for a soul inherently unscientific?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 10, Issue. 04, p. 612.
Neill, S.D. 1989. The information analyst as a quality filter in the scientific communication process. Journal of Information Science, Vol. 15, Issue. 1, p. 3.
Bornmann, Lutz 2014. Gould, T.H.P. (2013). Do we still need peer review? An argument for change. Scarecrow Press: Plymouth, UK. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 65, Issue. 1, p. 209.
Cheverud, James M. 1990. Inheritance and the additive genetic model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 13, Issue. 01, p. 124.
Newton, Douglas P. 2010. Quality and Peer Review of Research: An Adjudicating Role for Editors. Accountability in Research, Vol. 17, Issue. 3, p. 130.
Bartneck, Christoph and Hu, Jun 2010. The fruits of collaboration in a multidisciplinary field. Scientometrics, Vol. 85, Issue. 1, p. 41.
Beloff, John 1987. In what respect is psi anomalous?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 10, Issue. 04, p. 570.
Rosenthal, Robert 1991. Some indices of the reliability of peer review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 14, Issue. 01, p. 160.
Cooper, M. Lynne 2009. Problems, Pitfalls, and Promise in the Peer-Review Process: Commentary on Trafimow & Rice (2009). Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 4, Issue. 1, p. 84.
Peres-Neto, Pedro R. 2016. Will technology trample peer review in ecology? Ongoing issues and potential solutions. Oikos, Vol. 125, Issue. 1, p. 3.
Shadish, William R. Zelinsky, Nicole A. M. Vevea, Jack L. and Kratochwill, Thomas R. 2016. A survey of publication practices of single-case design researchers when treatments have small or large effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol. 49, Issue. 3, p. 656.
van Noordwijk, Arie J. 1990. Variation in means and in ends. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 13, Issue. 01, p. 145.
Pouris, Anastassios 1988. Peer review in scientifically small countries. R&D Management, Vol. 18, Issue. 4, p. 333.
Swales, John M. and Leeder, Christopher 2012. A reception study of the articles published in English for Specific Purposes from 1990–1999. English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 31, Issue. 2, p. 137.
Peters, Douglas P. and Ceci, Stephen J. 1985. Peer review: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 8, Issue. 04, p. 747.
Wood, Michael Roberts, Martyn and Howell, Barbara 2004. The Reliability of Peer Reviews of Papers on Information Systems. Journal of Information Science, Vol. 30, Issue. 1, p. 2.
Blair, Carole Brown, Julie R. and Baxter, Leslie A. 1994. Disciplining the feminine. Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 80, Issue. 4, p. 383.
Kerig, Patricia K. 2017. Inaugural Editorial. Journal of Traumatic Stress, Vol. 30, Issue. 1, p. 5.
Gould, Thomas H. P. 2012. The Future of Peer Review: Four Possible Options to Nothingness. Publishing Research Quarterly, Vol. 28, Issue. 4, p. 285.
Mahoney, Michael J. 1991. Justice, efficiency and epistemology in the peer review of scientific manuscripts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 14, Issue. 01, p. 157.
Kern, David E. 1988. JGIM manuscript review policies. Journal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, p. 98.
Svirsky, Mario A. 2004. Editorial. Ear and Hearing, Vol. 25, Issue. 2, p. 85.
Foley, Jennifer A. 2013. Peer Review, Citation Ratings and Other Fetishes. Springer Science Reviews, Vol. 1, Issue. 1-2, p. 5.
1989. Fumes from the spleen. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, p. 4.
Epstein, William M. 2004. Confirmational Response Bias and the Quality of the Editorial Processes Among American Social Work Journals. Research on Social Work Practice, Vol. 14, Issue. 6, p. 450.
Gérvas, J. and Pérez Fernández, M. 2001. La revisión por pares en las revistas científicas. Atención Primaria, Vol. 27, Issue. 6, p. 432.
Xia, Jingfeng Harmon, Jennifer L. Connolly, Kevin G. Donnelly, Ryan M. Anderson, Mary R. and Howard, Heather A. 2015. Who publishes in “predatory” journals?. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 66, Issue. 7, p. 1406.
Iwata, Brian A. and Lent, Carol E. 1984. Participation by Women in Behavior Analysis: Some Recent Data on Authorship of Manuscripts Submitted to the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. The Behavior Analyst, Vol. 7, Issue. 1, p. 77.
Gergen, Mary 1987. The case of the underdetermined theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 10, Issue. 04, p. 588.
Crow, James F. 1990. How important is detecting interaction?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 13, Issue. 01, p. 126.
LIEBOWITZ, STAN J. 2014. WILLFUL BLINDNESS: THE INEFFICIENT REWARD STRUCTURE IN ACADEMIC RESEARCH. Economic Inquiry, Vol. 52, Issue. 4, p. 1267.
Pressman, Steven 1994. Simultaneous Multiple Journal Submissions: The Case Against. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 53, Issue. 3, p. 316.
Daft, Richard L. and Lewin, Arie Y. 2008. Perspective—Rigor and Relevance in Organization Studies: Idea Migration and Academic Journal Evolution. Organization Science, Vol. 19, Issue. 1, p. 177.
Delcomyn, Fred 1991. Peer review: Explicit criteria and training can help. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 14, Issue. 01, p. 144.
Bourbaki, Lemme B. 1999. Opinion. The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol. 21, Issue. 1, p. 4.
NEFF, BRYAN D. and OLDEN, JULIAN D. 2006. Is Peer Review a Game of Chance?. BioScience, Vol. 56, Issue. 4, p. 333.
Moser, Klaus Wolff, Hans-Georg and Kraft, Alexandra 2013. The de-escalation of commitment: predecisional accountability and cognitive processes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 43, Issue. 2, p. 363.
Bornstein, Robert F. 1991. The predictive validity of peer review: A neglected issue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 14, Issue. 01, p. 138.
Della Sala, Sergio Grafman, Jordan and Cubelli, Roberto 2013. I copy, therefore I publish. Cortex, Vol. 49, Issue. 9, p. 2281.
Gantman, Ernesto R. 2015. Management research worldwide: extent and determinants (1996-2010). International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 23, Issue. 2, p. 250.
Callaghan, Chris William 2017. Contemporary HIV/AIDS research: Insights from knowledge management theory. SAHARA-J: Journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS, Vol. 14, Issue. 1, p. 53.
Broughton, Richard S. 1987. Parapsychology on the couch. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 10, Issue. 04, p. 575.
Gilmore, J. Barnard 1991. On forecasting validity and finessing reliability. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 14, Issue. 01, p. 148.
Hillman, Amy J. and Rynes, Sara L. 2007. The Future of Double-Blind Review in Management. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 44, Issue. 4, p. 622.
Hilgartner, Stephen 1997. The Sokal Affair in Context. Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 22, Issue. 4, p. 506.
Boice, Robert Pecker, Gayle Zaback, Ellen and Barlow, David H. 1985. A challenge to Peters and Ceci's conclusions with an examination of editorial files for reviewer appropriateness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 8, Issue. 04, p. 744.
Nadon, Robert and Kihlstrom, John F. 1987. Hypnosis, psi, and the psychology of anomalous experience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 10, Issue. 04, p. 597.
Dashper, Katherine 2015. Revise, resubmit and reveal? An autoethnographer’s story of facing the challenges of revealing the self through publication. Current Sociology, Vol. 63, Issue. 4, p. 511.
Boots, Sharon G. 1985. A Thanks to Our Reviewera—Peer Review Revisited. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vol. 74, Issue. 3, p. 235.
Houts, Arthur C Cook, Thomas D and Shadish, William R 1986. The person-situation debate: A critical multiplist perspective. Journal of Personality, Vol. 54, Issue. 1, p. 52.
Dunning, J. 2012. How to complete a review for the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and the journal Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Vol. 41, Issue. 2, p. 242.
Fuentes Cortés, Miguel 2014. Michelle Lamont: How professors think: inside the curious world of academic judgment. Onomázein Revista de lingüística, filología y traducción, Vol. 30, p. 213.
WRIGHT, TRINA J. and ORBE, MARK P. 2003. Turning the Tables of Analysis in Intercultural Communication Research: Studying the Facework Strategies Used by "Anonymous" European American Reviewers. Howard Journal of Communications, Vol. 14, Issue. 1, p. 1.
Whitehurst, Grover J. 1983. Interrater agreement for reviews for Developmental Review. Developmental Review, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, p. 73.
Mentzer, Marc S. 1994. Organization theory as ideological battleground in the year 2000. International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 17, Issue. 3-4, p. 589.
Krippner, Stanley 1987. Never say never again: Rapprochement may be nearer than you think!. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 10, Issue. 04, p. 595.
van Teijlingen, Edwin and Hundley, Vanora 2002. Getting your paper to the right journal: a case study of an academic paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 37, Issue. 6, p. 506.
Fox, Dennis R. 1984. Alternative Perspectives on the Pressure to Publish. Teaching of Psychology, Vol. 11, Issue. 4, p. 239.
Nelson, Roger O. and Radin, Dean I. 1987. When immovable objections meet irresistible evidence: A case of selective reporting. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 10, Issue. 04, p. 600.
Bunge, Mario 1987. Why parapsychology cannot become a science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 10, Issue. 04, p. 576.
Potuto, Josephine (Jo) R. 2016. Whose Article Is It Anyway?: Student Editors and Law Reviews. Indiana Law Review, Vol. 49, Issue. 3, p. 609.
Ross, Michael and Ellard, John H 1986. On winnowing: The impact of scarcity on allocators' evaluations of candidates for a resource. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 22, Issue. 4, p. 374.
Tavares de Matos Cardoso, María Manuela 2011. El <i>peer review</i> de las revistas científicas en Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales: políticas y prácticas editoriales declaradas. Revista española de Documentación Científica, Vol. 34, Issue. 2, p. 141.
Jones, A. Kyle Palmans, Hugo and Orton, Colin G. 2010. Medical Physics should adopt double-blind peer review of all manuscripts. Medical Physics, Vol. 37, Issue. 10, p. 5151.
Nosek, Brian A. and Bar-Anan, Yoav 2012. Scientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific Communication. Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 23, Issue. 3, p. 217.
Ross-Hellauer, Tony 2017. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, Vol. 6, p. 588.
Roediger, Henry L. 1991. Is unreliability in peer review harmful?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 14, Issue. 01, p. 159.
Lipp, H.-P. 1990. Flechsig's rule and quantitative behavior genetics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 13, Issue. 01, p. 139.
Maxwell, Scott E. 1990. Why are interactions so difficult to detect?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 13, Issue. 01, p. 140.
Dickersin, Kay and Chalmers, Iain 2011. Recognizing, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis Bacon to the WHO. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 104, Issue. 12, p. 532.
Detterman, Douglas K. 1990. Don't kill the ANOVA messenger for bearing bad interaction news. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 13, Issue. 01, p. 131.
A growing interest in and concern about the adequacy and fairness of modern peer-review practices in publication and funding are apparent across a wide range of scientific disciplines. Although questions about reliability, accountability, reviewer bias, and competence have been raised, there has been very little direct research on these variables.
The present investigation was an attempt to study the peer-review process directly, in the natural setting of actual journal referee evaluations of submitted manuscripts. As test materials we selected 12 already published research articles by investigators from prestigious and highly productive American psychology departments, one article from each of 12 highly regarded and widely read American psychology journals with high rejection rates (80%) and nonblind refereeing practices.
With fictitious names and institutions substituted for the original ones (e.g., Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential), the altered manuscripts were formally resubmitted to the journals that had originally refereed and published them 18 to 32 months earlier. Of the sample of 38 editors and reviewers, only three (8%) detected the resubmissions. This result allowed nine of the 12 articles to continue through the review process to receive an actual evaluation: eight of the nine were rejected. Sixteen of the 18 referees (89%) recommended against publication and the editors concurred. The grounds for rejection were in many cases described as “serious methodological flaws.” A number of possible interpretations of these data are reviewed and evaluated.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.