The Air We Breathe: A Critical Look at Practices and Alternatives in the Peer-Review Process

Perspectives on Psychological Science

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 40-50

  Suls, Jerry ^a   Martin, René ^a,b  

^a E11 SSH   (United States)

^b VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70749101859     PISSN: 17456916     EISSN: 17456924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01105.x     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Adair R.K.A physics editor comments on Peters and Ceci's peer-review study.Brain and Behavioral Sciences. 1982;5:196.
2. Alpert J.S.Peer review: The best of the blemished?.American Journal of Medicine. 2007;120:287-288.
3. Amabile T.M.Brilliant but cruel: Perceptions of negative evaluators.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1983;19:146-156.
4. Armstrong J.S.Barriers to scientific contributions: The author's formula.Brain and Behavioral Sciences. 1982;5:197-199.
5. Berkowitz L.,Donnerstein E.Experimental validity is more than skin deep: Some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments.American Psychologist. 1982;37:245-257.
6. Beyer J.Editorial policies and practices among leading journals in four scientific fields.Sociological Quarterly. 1978;19:68-88.
7. Bohlin I.Communication regimes in competition: The current transition in scholarly communication seen through the lens of the sociology of technology.Social Studies of Science. 2004;34:364-391.
8. Bornstein R.J.Epistemic progress and journal page limitations: A proposal for increasing the base rate of manuscript acceptance in psychology journals.American Psychologist. 1990;45:673-674.
9. Bornstein R.J.Manuscript review in Psychology: Psychometrics, demand characteristics, and an alternative model.Journal of Mind and Behavior. 1991;12:429-468.
10. Bradley J.V.Pernicious publication practices.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. 1981;18:31-34.
11. Burnham J.C.The evolution of editorial peer review.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1990;263:1323-1329.
12. Cicchetti D.V.The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation.Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1991;14:119-186.
13. Cole S.Making science: Between nature and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1992.
14. Cole S.,Cole J.R.,Simon G.Chance and consensus in peer review.Science. 1981;214:881-886.
15. Eichorn D.H.,VandenBos G.R.Dissemination of scientific and professional knowledge.American Psychologist. 1985;40:1301-1316.
16. Finke R.A.Recommendations for contemporary editorial practices.American Psychologist. 1990;45:669-670.
17. Fiske D.,Fogg L.But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper! Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments.American Psychologist. 1990;45:591-598.
18. Garcia J.Tilting at the papermills of academia.American Psychologist. 1981;36:149-158.
19. Garvey W.D.,Lin N.,Nelson C.E.Communication in the physical and social sciences.Science. 1970;146:1655-1659.
20. Ginsparg P.First steps towards electronic research communication.Computers in Physics. 1994;8:390-396.
21. Glenn N.D.The journal article review process as a game of chance.Brain and Behavioral Sciences. 1982;5:211-212.
22. Godlee F.Making reviewers visible: Openness, accountability and credit.Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002;287:2762-2765.
23. Godlee F.,Gale C.R.,Martyn C.N.Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;280:237-240.
24. Godlee F.,Jefferson T.Peer review in health sciences. 2nd edLondon: BMJ Books; 2003.
25. Gottfredson S.D.Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments.American Psychologist. 1978;33:920-934.
26. Gottfredson S.D.,Garvey W.D.,Goodnow J.E.Quality indicators in the scientific journal article publication process.JSAS Catalog Selected Documents. 1977;7:745.
27. Gunnarsdottir B.Scientific journal publications: On the role of electronic preprint exchange in the distribution of scientific literature.Social Studies of Science. 2005;35:549-575.
28. Harcum E.R.,Rosen E.F.The gatekeepers of psychology: Evaluation of peer review by case history. Westport, CT: Praeger; 1993.
29. Hargens L.L.Cognitive consensus and journal rejection rates.American Sociological Review. 1988;53:139-151.
30. Horrobin D.F.The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1990;263:1438-1441.
31. Jefferson T.,Alderson P.,Wager E.,Davidoff F.Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002;287:2784-2786.
32. Justice A.C.,Cho M.K.,Winker M.A.,Berlin J.A.,Rennie D.Does masking author identity improve peer review quality: A randomized trial.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;280:240-242.
33. KoopT.PoschlU.(2006).An open, two-stage peer-review journal. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04988.html.
34. Kronick D.A.Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1990;263:1321-1322.
35. Kuhn T.The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd edChicago: University of Chicago Press; 1970.
36. Latané B.Notes for a talk on our scientific publication system.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1978;4:22-23.
37. Latour B.Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1987.
38. Linkov F.,Lovalekar M.,Laporte R.Scientific journals are 'faith based": Is there science behind peer review?.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2006;99:596-598.
39. Lock S.A difficult balance: Editorial peer review in medicine. London: Nuffield Provincials Hospital Trust; 1985.
40. Lodahl J.B.,Gordon G.The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments.American Psychological Review. 1972;37:57-72.
41. Mahoney M.J.Publication prejudices: An experimental test of confirmatory bias in the peer review system.Cognitive Research and Therapy. 1977;1:161-175.
42. Mahoney M.J.Open exchange and epistemic process.American Psychologist. 1985;40:29-39.
43. Marsh H.W.,Ball S.The peer review process used to evaluate manuscripts submitted to academic journals: Interjudgmental reliability.Journal of Experimental Education. 1989;57:151-169.
44. McNutt A.,Evans A.T.,Fletcher R.H.,Fletcher S.W.The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1990;263:1371-1376.
45. Merton R.K.The Matthew Effect in science.Science. 1968;159:56-63.
46. MeyerG.S.(1979).Academic labor and the development of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Stony Brook.
47. Nickerson R.What authors want from reviewers and editors.American Psychologist. 2005;60:161-162.
48. O'ConnellH.B.(2002).Physicists thriving with paperless publishing. High Energy Physics Webzine, 6. Retrieved fromhttp://library.cern.ch/HEPLW/6/papers/3/.
49. Peters D.P.,Ceci S.J.Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again.Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1982;5:187-255.
50. Rennie D.Peer review in health sciences. 2nd edGodlee F.Jefferson T., ed. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2003:1-13.
51. Roediger H.L.Scientific excellence. Jackson D.N.Rushton J.P., ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1987:222-252.
52. Rosenthal R.Experimenter effects in behavioral research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1966.
53. SandewallE.(1997).A neo-classical structure for scientific publication and reviewing. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ep.liu.se/ea/apt/1997/001/2006.
54. Scott W.A.Interreferee agreement on some characteristics submitted to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.American Psychologist. 1974;29:698-702.
55. Simonton D.K.Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2004.
56. Smith R.The trouble with medical journals. London: Royal Society of Medicine; 2006.
57. Starbuck W.H.How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication.Organization Science. 2005;16:180-200.
58. Reviewing scientific works in psychology. Sternberg R., ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2006.
59. Sternberg R.,Gordeeva T.The anatomy of impact: What makes an article influential?.Psychological Science. 1996;7:69-75.
60. Suls J.Report from the editor of PSPB: Turning the corner!.Dialogue. 2001;16:28.
61. Suls J.,Fletcher B.Social comparison in the social and physical sciences: An archival study.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1983;44:575-580.
62. Suls J.,Gastorf J.Has the social psychology of the experiment influenced how research is conducted?.European Journal of Social Psychology. 1980;10:291-294.
63. Tesser A.,Martin L.Reviewing scientific works in psychology. Sternberg R., ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2006:3-30.
64. Triggle C.R.,Triggle D.J.What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is good men do nothing?.Vascular Health and Risk Management. 2007;3:39-53.
65. van Rooyen S.,Godlee F.,Evans S.,Smith R.,Black N.Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;280:234-237.
66. Web of Science.(2008). Retrieved fromhttp://www.thomsonreuters.com/products_services/scientific/Web_of_Science.
67. Wolff W.M.A study of criteria in journal manuscripts.American Psychologist. 1970;25:636-639.
68. Wyer R.S.Excerpts from letters received by Bibb Latane.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1978;4:29-30.
69. Zanna M.My life as a dog (I mean editor).Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1992;18:485-488.
70. Ziman J.Public knowledge: An essay concerning the social dimension of science. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 1968.
71. Ziman J.Information, communication, knowledge.Nature. 1969;224:318-324.
72. Zuckerman H.,Merton R.K.Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalization, structure and functions of the referee system.Minerva. 1971;9:66-100.
73. Zuckerman H.,Merton R.K.The sociology of science. Storer N., ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1973:460-496.