The pursuit of publication: Author's perceptions of and responses to peer-review

North American Journal of Psychology

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 1-16

  Bartels, Jared M ^a   Glass, Laura A ^a   Kreiner, David S ^a   Ryan, Joseph J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 63849227642     PISSN: 15277143     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Benos, D. J., Kirk, K. L., & Hall, J. E. (2003). How to review a paper. Advances in Physiology Education, 27, 47-52.
2. Blackburn, J. L., & Hakel, M. D. (2006). An examination of sources of peer-review bias. Psychological Science, 17, 378-382.
3. Boice, R., & Jones, F. (1984). Why academics don't write. The Journal of Higher Education, 55, 567-582.
4. Boice, R., Shaughnessy, P., & Pecker, G. (1985). Women and publishing in psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 577-578.
5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
6. Cobanoglu, C., Wardle, B., Moreo, P. J., & Cobanoglu, C. (2001). A comparison of mail, fax, and web-based survey methods. International Journal of Market Research, 43, 441-452.
7. Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web-or internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 821-836.
8. Garfield, E. (1986). Refereeing and peer review part 2: The research on refereeing and alternatives to the present system. Essays of an Information Scientist, 9, 239-248.
9. Hartley, J., & Branthwaite, A. (1989). The psychologist as wordsmith: A questionnaire study of the writing strategies of productive British psychologists. Higher Education, 18, 423-452.
10. Kaplan, D. (2005). How to fix peer review: Separating its two functions - improving manuscripts and judging their scientific merit - would help. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14, 321-323.
11. Love, K. M., Bahner, A. D., Jones, L. N., & Nilsson, J. E. (2007). An investigation of early research experience and research self-efficacy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 314-320.
12. Mahoney, M. J. (1979). Psychology of the scientist: An evaluative review. Social Studies of Science, 9, 349-375.
13. Marsh, H. W., Jayasinghe, U. W., & Bond, N. W. (2008). Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist, 63, 160-168.
14. Martinko, M. J., Campbell, C. R., & Douglas, S. C. (2000). Bias in the social science publication process: Are there exceptions? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 1-18.
15. Nickerson, R. S. (2005). What authors want from journal reviewers and editors. American Psychologist, 60, 661-662.
16. Rindova, V. (2008). Editor's comments: Publishing theory when you are new to the game. Academy of Management Review, 33, 300-303.
17. Snell, L. L., & Spencer, J. (2005). Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal. Medical Education, 39, 90-97.
18. Weber, E. J., Katz, P. P., Waeckerle, J. F., & Callaham, M. L. (2002). Author perception of peer review: Impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2790-2793.
19. Weil, J. (2004). Peer review: An essential step in the publishing process. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 13, 183-187.
20. Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality, 47, 245-287.