Quality and peer review of research: An adjudicating role for editors

Accountability in Research

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 130-145

  Newton, Douglas P ^a  

^a DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Editor engagement; Peer review shortcomings

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; ETHICS; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH ETHICS; STANDARD;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DECISION MAKING; EDITORIAL POLICIES; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 77952526993     PISSN: 08989621     EISSN: 15455815     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08989621003791945     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Armstrong, J. S. (1980). Unintelligible management research and academic prestige. Interfaces, 10:80-86.
2. Armstrong, J. S. (1982). Research on scientific journals: Implications for editors and authors. Journal of Forecasting, 1:83-104.
3. Armstrong, J. S. (1997). Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3:63-84.
4. Austin, K. M., Moline, M. E., and Williams, G. T. (1990). Confronting Malpractice. Newbury Park: Sage.
5. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). (2010). Reported on the Today Programme, Radio 4, February 2, 2010. Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/listen_again/. Last accessed 12 April 2010.
6. Bacchetti, P. (2002). Peer review of statistics in medical research: The other problem. British Medical Journal, 324:1271-1273.
7. Bakanic, V., McPhail, C., and Simon, R. J. (1987). The manuscript review and decision-making process. American Sociological Review, 52:631-642.
8. Baker, D. (2002). The peer review process in science education. Research in Science Education, 32:171-180.
9. Bradley, J. V. (1982). Editorial overkill. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 19:271-274.
10. Brehms, S. S. and Brehms, J. W. (1966). Pyschological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control. New York: Academic Press.
11. Brower, S. (2008). Why peer review? Communications in Information Literacy, 2:62-63.
12. Burnham, J. C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 263:1323-1329.
13. Campanario, J. M. (1998a). Peer review for journals as it stands today-Part 1. Science Communication, 19:181-211.
14. Campanario, J. M. (1998b). Peer review for journals as it stands today-Part 2. Science Communication, 19:277-306.
15. Eysenck, H. J. and Eysenck, S. B. G. (1992). Peer review: advice to referees and contributors. Personality and Individual Differences, 13:393-399.
16. Finke, R. A. (1990). Recommendations for contemporary editorial practices. American Psychologist, 45:669-670.
17. Foucault, M. (1970). The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Tavistock.
18. Foucault, M. (1980). Power and Knowledge. Brighton: Harvester Press.
19. Foucault, M. (1988). The ethics of care for the self as a practice of freedom. In Bernauer, J. and Rassmussen, D. (eds.), The final Foucault. Boston: MIT Press, pp. 1-20.
20. Garfunkel, J. M., Ulshen, M. H., Hamrick, H. J., and Lawson, E. E. (1990). Problems identified by secondary review of accepted manuscripts. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263:1369-1371.
21. Giddens, A. (2001). Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
22. Hadjistavropoulos, T. and Bieling, P. J. (2000). When reviews attack: Ethics, free speech, and the peer review process. Canadian Psychology, 41:152-159.
23. Hames, I. (2007). Peer Review and Manuscript Management of Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Malden: Blackwell.
24. Haralambros, M. and Holborn, M. (2000). Sociology. London: Collins.
25. Hauser, M. and Fehr, E. (2007). An incentive solution to the peer review problem. PLoS, Biology, 5:e107.
26. Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T., and Fairbairn, H. (2008). Consistency and inconsistency in Ph.D. thesis examination. Australian Journal of Education, 52:36-48.
27. Hopps, J. G. (1990). Reflections on 'confirmational response bias among social work journals'. Science, Technology and Human Values, 15:39-45.
28. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2:e334.
29. Jain, A. K. (2009). Peer review: Heart and soul of scientific publication. Indian Journal of Orthopaedics, 43:3-5.
30. Jayasinghe, U. W., Marsh, H. W., and Bond, N. (2001). Peer review in the funding of research in Higher Education: The Australian experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23:343-364.
31. Jayasinghe, U. W., Marsh, H. W., and Bond, N. (2006). A new reader trial approach to peer review in funding research grants: an Australian experiment. Scientometrics, 69:591-606.
32. Kalles, D. (2005). Improving professional conduct in publishing. Computer, 38:114-116.
33. Kitchener, K. (1984). Intuition, critical evaluation and ethical principles: The foundation for ethical decisions in counselling psychology. Counselling Psychology, 12:43-57.
34. Liesegang, T. J. (2009). Revealing the faults in medical journals. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae, 57:75-83.
35. Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routledge.
36. Lindzey, G. and Byrne, D. (1968). Measurement of social choice and interpersonal alternatives. In Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology,. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, pp. 452-525.
37. Mabbot, J. D. (1966). An Introduction to Ethics. London: Hutchinson.
38. Macfarlane, B. (2006). The Academic Citizen. London: Routledge.
39. Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1:161-175.
40. Marsh, H. W., Jayasinghe, U. W., and Bond, N. (2008). Improving the peer review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist, 63:160-168.
41. McIntyre, A. (1985). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. London: Duckworth.
42. Moonesinghe, R., Khoury, M. J., and Janssens, C. J. W. (2007). Most published research findings are wrong-but a little replication goes a long way. PLoS Medicine, 4:e28.
43. Natfulin, D. H., Ware, J. E., and Donnelly, F. A. (1973). The Doctor Fox lecture: A paradigm of educational seduction. Journal of Medical Education, 48:630-635.
44. Neff, B. D. and Olden, J. D. (2006). Is peer review a game of chance. BioScience, 56:333-340.
45. Patterson, M. (2007). Bringing peer review out of the shadows. Public Library of Science. Available at http://www.plos.org. Last accessed 12 April 2010.
46. Peters, D. P. and Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5:187-255.
47. Persaud, R. (1995). Peering into review. Psychiatric Bulletin, 19:529-531.
48. Rivera, H. (2009). Editors' malpractice: Forward submitted letters (to the concerned authors), then reject them. Accountability in Research, 16:331-333.
49. Robergs, R. A. (2003). A critical review of peer review: The need to scrutinize the 'gatekeepers' of research in exercise physiology. Journal of Exercise Physiology-online, 6:i-xiii.
50. Rojewski, J. W. and Domenico, D. M. (2004). The art and politics of peer review. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 20:1-13.
51. Shamoo, A. E. (1994). Editors, peer reviews, and ethics. Perpsectives, 14:4-5.
52. Shatz, D. (2004). Peer Review: A Critical Enquiry. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
53. Smith, R. (1999). Editorial: A beginning that should lead to complete transparency. British Medical Journal, 318:4-5.
54. Snodgrass, R. (2006). Single versus double blind reviewing: An analysis of the literature. ACM Sigmod Record, 35:8-21.
55. Sokal, A. (1996). Transgressing the boundaries: Towards a transformational hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text, 46-47:217-252.
56. Tannen, D. (1998). The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue. New York: Random House.
57. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological rating. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4:25-29.
58. Tight, M. (2009). The Development of Higher Education in the United Kingdom since 1945. Maidenhead: Society for Research in Higher Education/Open University.
59. Toulmin, S. (1972). Human Understanding. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
60. Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Medford: American Society for Information Science and Technology.