Peer review process: Assessments by applicant-nominated referees are biased, inflated, unreliable and invalid

Australian Psychologist

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 33-38

  Marsh, Herbert W ^a   Bond, Nigel W ^b   Jayasinghe, Upali W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846989345     PISSN: 00050067     EISSN: 17429544     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00050060600823275     Document Type: Review

References (14)

1. Australian Research Council (ARC). (1996). ARC members handbook. Canberra: Author.
2. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2005). Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustee decisions. Scientometrics, 63, 297 - 320.
3. Chubin, D. E. (1994). Grants peer review in theory and practice. Evaluation Review, 18, 20 - 30.
4. Cicchetti, D. V. (1991). The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 14, 119 - 135.
5. Goldstein, H. (2003). Multilevel statistical models (3rd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
6. Grimm, D. (2005). Suggesting of excluding reviewers can help get your paper published. Science, 309, 1974.
7. Jayasinghe, U. W. (2004). Peer review in the assessment and funding of research by Australian Research Council. Doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of Western Sydney, Australia. http://self.uws.edu.au/Theses/ Jayasinghe/list.htm
8. Jayasinghe, U. W., Marsh, H. W., & Bond, N. (2001). Peer review in the funding of research in higher education: The Australian experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 343 - 364.
9. Jayasinghe, U. W., Marsh, H. W., & Bond, N. (2003). A multilevel cross-classified modeling approach to peer review of grant proposals: The effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (A), 166, 279 - 300.
10. Jefferson, T. (2001). Corrections and clarifications. Science, 294, 1463.
11. Marsh, H. W., & Ball, S. (1981). Interjudgmental reliability of review for the Journal of Educational Psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 872 - 880.
12. Marsh, H. W., & Ball, S. (1989). The peer review process used to evaluate manuscripts submitted to academic journals: Interjudgmental reliability. Journal of Experimental Education, 57, 151 - 169.
13. Marsh, H. W., & Ball, S. (1991). Reflections on the peer review process. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 14, 157 - 158.
14. Wood, F. Q. (1997). The peer review process (Report No. 54). Canberra: National Board of Employment, Education and Training.