Peer review and its contribution to manuscript quality: An Australian perspective

Learned Publishing

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 307-318

  Lu, Yanping ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 54949135773     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/095315108X323884     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Zuckerman, H. and Merton, R.K. 1971. Patterns of evaluation in science: institutionalization, structure and functions of the referee systems. Minerva, 9: 66-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01553188
2. Jefferson, T., Wager, E. and Davidoff, F. 2002. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287: 2786-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2786
3. Faupel, C. 2002. Editor's comments. Sociological Inquiry, 72: 1-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-682X.00001
4. Gosden, H. 2003. 'Why not give us the full story?' Functions of referees' comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 87-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02) 00037-1
5. Miser, H.J. 1998. The easy chair: journal editing as I see it. Interfaces, 28: 115-23.
6. Abby, M., Massey, M.D., Galandiuk, S. and Polk, H.C. 1994. Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical manuscripts. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272: 105-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/ jama.272.2.105
7. Horrobin, D. F. 1990. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263: 1438-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.263.10.1438
8. Sweitzer, B.J. and Cullen, D.J. 1994. How well does a journal's peer review process function? A survey of authors' opinion. Journal of the AmericanMedical Association, 272: 152-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.272. 2.152
9. Chubin, D.E. and Hackett, E.J. Peerless Science: Peer Review and US Science Policy. Albany, State University of New York Press, 1990, p. 4.
10. Fletcher, R. and Fletcher, S. 1997. Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3: 35-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-997-0015-5
11. Jefferson, T., Wager, E. and Davidoff, F. 2002. Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287: 2784-6. URL: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/ 287/21/2784
12. Cole, S., Simon, G. and Cole, J. R. 1988. Do journal rejection rates index consensus? American Sociological Review, 53: 152-6.
13. Hargens, L.L. 1988. Scholarly consensus & journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review, 53: 139-51.
14. Biddle, C. and Aker, J. 1996. How does the peer review process influence AANA Journal article read-ability? Journal of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, 64: 65-8.
15. Pierie, J.-P.E.N., Walvoort, H.C. and Overbeke, A.J.P.M. 1996. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. The Lancet, 348: 1480-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(96)05016-7
16. Metoyer-Duran, C. 1993. The readibility of published, accepted, and rejected papers appearing in College & Research Libraries. College & Research Libraries, 54: 517-25.
17. Roberts, J.C., Fletcher, R.H. and Fletcher, S.W. 1994. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Journal of the AmericanMedical Association, 272: 119-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.272.2.119
18. Cobo, E., Selva-O'Callagham, A., Ribera, J.-M., Cardellach, F., Dominguez, R., and Vilardell, M. 2007. Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial. PLoS One, 3: 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000332
19. Purcell, G.P., Donovan, S.L. and Davidoff, F. 1998. Changes to manuscripts during the editorial process: characterizing the evolution of a clinical paper. Journal of the AmericanMedical Association, 280: 227-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.227
20. Campanario, J.M. 1996. Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47: 302-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199604)47: 4〈302::AID-ASI6〉3.0.CO;2-0
21. Goodman, S.N., Berlin, J., Fletcher, S.W. and Fletcher, R.H. 1994. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine, 121: 11-21. http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/121/1/11
22. Smigel, E.O. and Ross, H.L. 1970. Factors in the editorial decision. The American Sociologist, 5: 19-21.
23. Beyer, J.M., Chanove, R.G. and Fox, W.B. 1995. The review process and the fates of manuscripts submitted to AMJ. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1219-60.
24. Jauch, L.R. and Wall, J.L. 1989. What they do when they get your manuscript: a survey of Academy of Management reviewer practices. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 157-73.
25. Bedeian, A.G. 2003. The manuscript review process: the proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12: 331-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1056492603258974
26. Rowlands, I. and Nicholas, D. 2006. The changing scholarly communication landscape: an international survey of senior researchers. Learned Publishing, 19: 31-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/095315106775122493
27. Thyer, B.A. and Myers, L.L. 2003. An empirical evaluation of the editorial practices of social work journals. Journal of Social Work Education, 39: 125-40. Available at http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/ summary_0286-23466319_ITM
28. Mark Ware Consulting. Peer Review in Scholarly Journals: Perspective of the scholarly community - An International Study. London, Publishing Research Consortium, 2007. Available at http://www.publishingresearch.net/ documents/PeerReviewFullPRCReport-final.pdf
29. Bradley, J.V. 1981. Pernicious publication practices. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 18: 31-4. http://www.psychonomic.org/search/view.cgi? id=12478
30. La Forge, J. and Coelho, R.J. 1998. Writing for publication: advice from authors. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counselling, 29: 35-9.
31. Swan, A. 1999. What authors want: the ALPSP research study on the motivations and concerns of contributors to learned journals. Learned Publishing, 12: 170-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/09531519950145742
32. Bakanic, V., McPhail, C. and Simon, R.J. 1987. The manuscript review and decision-making process. American Sociological Review, 52: 631-42.
33. Callaham, M.L., Baxt, W.G., Waeckerle, J.F. and Wears, R.L. 1998. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviewers of manuscripts. Journal of the AmericanMedical Association, 280: 229-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.229
34. Fogg, L. and Fiske, D.W. 1993. Foretelling the judgments of reviewers and editors. American Psychologist, 48: 293-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0003-066X.48.3.293
35. Gilliland, S.W. and Cortina, J.M. 1997. Reviewer and editor decision making in the journal review process. Personnel Psychology, 50: 427-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00914.x
36. Henderson, A. 2001. Undermining peer review. Society, 38: 47-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12115-001-1040-7
37. Murphy, T.M. and Utts, J.M. 1994. A retrospective analysis of peer review at Physiologia Plantarum. Physiologia Plantarum, 92: 535-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1994.tb03021.x
38. Ellison, G. 2002. The slowdown of the economics publishing process. Journal of Political Economy, 110: 947-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/ 341868
39. Mason, P.M., Steagall, J.W. and Fabritius, M.M. 1992. Publication delays in articles in economics what to do about them. Applied Economics, 24: 859-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00036849200000054
40. Tight, M. 2003. Reviewing the reviewers. Quality in Higher Education, 9: 295-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1353832032000151157
41. Arleck, P.L. and Settle, R.B. The survey research handbook. Irwin, IL, Homewood, 1985.
42. Kerlinger, F.N. and Lee, H.B. Foundations of Behavioral Research, 4th edition. Fort Worth, TX, Harcourt, 2000.
43. Burnham, J.C. 1990. The evolution of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263: 1323-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/ jama.263.10.1323
44. Garfunkel, J.M., Lawson, E.E., Hamrick, H.J. and Ulshen, M.H. 1990. Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author's evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263: 1376-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.263.10.1376
45. Laband, D.N. 1990. Is there value-added from the review process in economics? Preliminary evidence from authors. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105: 341-52.
46. Wilson, D.G. 1999. A bill of rights for authors? Learned Publishing, 12: 259-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/09531519950145652
47. Tite, L. and Schroter, S. 2007. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61: 9-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.2006.049817
48. Epstein, W. M. 1990. Confirmational response bias among social work journals. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15: 9-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016224399001500102
49. Nicholas, D., Jamali, H.R., Huntington, P. and Rowlands, I. 2006. On the tips of their tongues: authors and their views on scholarly publishing. Learned Publishing, 19: 193-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/ 095315106777877494
50. Callaham, M.L. and Tercier, J. 2007. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PloS Medicine, 4: 32-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040