Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):187-195 (1982)
Abstract
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 variablesDOI
10.1017/s0140525x00011183
Links
PhilArchive
External links
(no proxy)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Through your library
- Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
- Configure custom resolver
My notes
Similar books and articles
A comparison of conflict of interest policies at Peer-reviewed journals in different scientific disciplines.Jessica S. Ancker & Annette Flanagin - 2007 - Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (2):147-157.
Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation.J. Scott Armstrong - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.
The principles and practices of Peer review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
The tragedy of the common reviewers: the peer review process.Ulysses Paulino De Albuquerque - unknown
Ethical issues in journal Peer-review.J. Angelo Corlett - 2005 - Journal of Academic Ethics 2 (4):355-366.
Referees, editors, and publication practices: Improving the reliability and usefulness of the Peer review system.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):51-62.
Preferential publication of editorial board members in medical specialty journals.J. Luty, S. M. R. Arokiadass, J. M. Easow & J. R. Anapreddy - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (3):200-202.
Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process.Wendy Lipworth, Ian H. Kerridge, Stacy M. Carter & Miles Little - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):267-280.
Evidence for the effectiveness of Peer review.Robert H. Fletcher & Suzanne W. Fletcher - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):35-50.
Sex biases in subject selection: A survey of articles published in american medical journals.David B. Resnik - 1999 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 20 (3):245-260.
Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin - 2013 - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.
Social Biases and Solutions for Procedural Objectivity.L. E. E. J. & CHRISTIAN D. SCHUNN - 2011 - Hypatia 26 (2):352-373.
Analytics
Added to PP
2013-11-21
Downloads
160 (#80,181)
6 months
12 (#77,199)
2013-11-21
Downloads
160 (#80,181)
6 months
12 (#77,199)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes.Anthony G. Greenwald & Mahzarin R. Banaji - 1995 - Psychological Review 102 (1):4-27.
Implicit bias, ideological bias, and epistemic risks in philosophy.Uwe Peters - 2019 - Mind and Language 34 (3):393-419.
Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning.David P. McCabe & Alan D. Castel - 2008 - Cognition 107 (1):343-352.
References found in this work
Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge.Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.) - 1970 - Cambridge University Press.
The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations.Robert King Merton - 1973 - University of Chicago Press.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.David Bohm - 1964 - Philosophical Quarterly 14 (57):377-379.
