Referees, editors, and publication practices: Improving the reliability and usefulness of the Peer review system
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):51-62 (1997)
The documented low levels of reliability of the peer review process present a serious challenge to editors who must often base their publication decisions on conflicting referee recommendations. The purpose of this article is to discuss this process and examine ways to produce a more reliable and useful peer review system.
|Keywords||peer review reliability validity publication practices manuscripts grants acceptance rates rejection rates behavioral sciences medical sciences physical sciences physics chemistry objective fair innovative/original training reviewers|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Domenic V. Cicchetti (1982). On Peer Review: “We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):205.
Domenic V. Cicchetti (1991). The Reliability of Peer Review for Manuscript and Grant Submissions: A Cross-Disciplinary Investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):119-135.
John C. Bailar (1991). Reliability, Fairness, Objectivity and Other Inappropriate Goals in Peer Review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):137-138.
Charles A. Kiesler (1991). Confusion Between Reviewer Reliability and Wise Editorial and Funding Decisions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):151-152.
J. Scott Armstrong & Raymond Hubbard (1991). Does the Need for Agreement Among Reviewers Inhibit the Publication Controversial Findings? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):136-137.
Citations of this work BETA
Arthur Stamps (1997). Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
Arthur Stamps Iii (1997). Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
Malhar N. Kumar (2014). Review of the Ethics and Etiquettes of Time Management of Manuscript Peer Review. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 12 (4):333-346.
Similar books and articles
Arthur E. Stamps (1997). Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):3-10.
Malcolm Atkinson (2001). 'Peer Review' Culture. Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2):193-204.
J. Scott Armstrong (1997). Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.
Ruth Ben-Yashar & Shmuel Nitzan (2001). Are Referees Sufficiently Informed About The Editor'S Practice? Theory and Decision 51 (1):1-11.
Leigh Turner (2003). Promoting F.A.I.T.H. In Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
Ronald N. Kostoff (1997). The Principles and Practices of Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
Wendy Lipworth, Ian Kerridge, Stacy Carter & Miles Little (2011). Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):267-280.
Jo Ann Carland, James W. Carland & Carroll D. Aby (1992). Proposed Codification of Ethicacy in the Publication Process. Journal of Business Ethics 11 (2):95 - 104.
Susan Haack (2007). Peer Review and Publication: Lessons for Lawyers. Stetson Law Review 36 (3).
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads22 ( #177,673 of 1,911,319 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #457,073 of 1,911,319 )
How can I increase my downloads?