Referees, editors, and publication practices: Improving the reliability and usefulness of the Peer review system
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|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
On Peer Review: “We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us”.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):205.
The Reliability of Peer Review for Manuscript and Grant Submissions: A Cross-Disciplinary Investigation.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):119-135.
Reliability, Fairness, Objectivity and Other Inappropriate Goals in Peer Review.John C. Bailar - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):137-138.
Confusion Between Reviewer Reliability and Wise Editorial and Funding Decisions.Charles A. Kiesler - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):151-152.
Does the Need for Agreement Among Reviewers Inhibit the Publication Controversial Findings?J. Scott Armstrong & Raymond Hubbard - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):136-137.
Citations of this work BETA
Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review.Arthur Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
Review of the Ethics and Etiquettes of Time Management of Manuscript Peer Review. [REVIEW]Malhar N. Kumar - 2014 - Journal of Academic Ethics 12 (4):333-346.
Similar books and articles
Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction.Arthur E. Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):3-10.
Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation.J. Scott Armstrong - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.
Are Referees Sufficiently Informed About The Editor'S Practice?Ruth Ben-Yashar & Shmuel Nitzan - 2001 - Theory and Decision 51 (1):1-11.
Promoting F.A.I.T.H. In Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review. [REVIEW]Leigh Turner - 2003 - Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
The Principles and Practices of Peer Review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process.Wendy Lipworth, Ian Kerridge, Stacy Carter & Miles Little - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):267-280.
Proposed Codification of Ethicacy in the Publication Process.Jo Ann Carland, James W. Carland & Carroll D. Aby - 1992 - Journal of Business Ethics 11 (2):95 - 104.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads22 ( #226,207 of 2,164,237 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #348,039 of 2,164,237 )
How can I increase my downloads?