A Systematic Appraisal of Peer Review Guidelines for Special Education Journals

Exceptionality

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 87-102

  Maggin, Daniel M ^a   Chafouleas, Sandra M ^b   Berggren, Melissa ^b   Sugai, George ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875821551     PISSN: 09362835     EISSN: 15327035     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09362835.2012.747181     Document Type: Review

References (56)

1. Albers, C. A., Floyd, R. G., Fuhrmann, M. J. and Martínez, R. S. 2011. Publication criteria and recommended areas of improvement within school psychology journals as reported by editors, journal board members, and manuscript authors. Journal of School Psychology, 49: 669-689.
2. American Educational Research Association. 2006. Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Retrieved fromhttp://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Publications/Journals/Educational_Researcher/3506/12ERv35n6_Standard4Report%20.pdf(accessed March 3, 2011)
3. American Psychological Association. 2009. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th ed. Washington, DC: Author.
4. Bornmann, L. and Mungra, P. 2011. Improving peer review in scholarly journals. European Science Editing, 37: 41-43.
5. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R. and Daniel, H. D. 2010. A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: A multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants. PLoS ONE, 5(12): e14331 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014331
6. Callaham, M. L., Wears, R. L. and Waeckerle, J. F. 1998. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 32: 318-322.
7. Campanario, J. M. 1998. Peer review for journals as it stands today-Part 1. Science Communication, 19: 181-211.
8. Cicchetti, D. V. 1991. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation: Commentary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14: 119-186.
9. Cicchetti, D. V. 1997. Referees, editors, and publication practices: Improving the reliability and usefulness of the peer review system. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3: 51-62.
10. Cobo, E., Cortés, J., Ribera, J., Cardellach, F., Selva-O'Callaghan, A.Kostov, B. 2011. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: Masked randomised trial. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 343: 1-11. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6783
11. Committee on Publication Ethics. 2011. Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. Retrieved fromhttp://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20conduct%20for%20journal%20editors4.pdf(accessed March 3, 2011)
12. Cook, B. G. and Cook, S. C. 2011. Unraveling evidence-based practices in special education. Journal of Special Education., doi: 10.1177/0022466911420877
13. Cook, B. G. and Schirmer, B. R. 2003. What is special about special education?. Journal of Special Education, 37: 200-205.
14. Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M. and Landrum, T. J. 2009. Determining evidence-based practices in special education. Exceptional Children, 75: 365-383.
15. Cooper, H. 2008. Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be?. American Psychologist, 63: 839-851.
16. Cooper, M. L. 2009. Problems, pitfalls, and promise in the peer-review process: Commentary on Trafimow & Rice (2009). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4: 84-90.
17. Daniel, H. D. 2005. Publications as a measure of scientific advancement and of scientists' productivity. Learned Publishing, 18: 143-148.
18. Daniel, H. D., Mittag, S. and Bornmann, L. 2007. The potential and problems of peer evaluation in higher education and research. Quality Assessment for Higher Education in Europe,: 71-82.
19. Feuer, M. J., Towne, L. and Shavelson, R. J. 2002. Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31: 4-14.
20. Godlee, F., Gale, C. R. and Martyn, C. N. 1998. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 280: 237-240.
21. Godlee, F. and Jefferson, T. 2003. Peer review in health sciences. London: BMJ Publishing Group.
22. Grayson, L. 2002. Evidence based policy and the quality of evidence: Rethinking peer review. Retrieved fromhttp://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/03/45/94/wp7.pdf
23. Groves, T. 2006. Quality and value: How can we get the best out of peer review. Nature, (Nature peer review debate). doi: 10.1038/nature04995
24. Harley, D. and Acord, S. K. 2011. Peer review in academic promotion and publishing: Its meaning, locus, and future. Retrieved fromhttp://escholarship.org/uc/item/1xv148c8
25. Horrobin, D. F. 1990. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 263: 1438-1441.
26. Jefferson, T., Rudin, M., Brodney Folse, S. and Davidoff, F. 2007. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.,: 2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3
27. Kassirer, J. P. and Campion, E. W. 1994. Peer review. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 272: 96-97.
28. Kratochwill, T. R. and Shernoff, E. S. 2003. Evidence-based practice: Promoting evidence-based interventions in school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 18: 389-408.
29. Kronick, D. A. 1990. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 263: 1321-1322.
30. Laine, C., Goodman, S. N., Griswold, M. E. and Sox, H. C. 2007. Reproducible research: Moving toward research the public can really trust. Annals of Internal Medicine, 146: 450-453.
31. Liang, B. A. and Cullen, D. J. 2000. The purpose of peer review. Anesthesiology, 92: 1495-1497.
32. Lovejoy, T. I., Revenson, T. A. and France, C. R. 2011. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42: 1-13.
33. Madigan, R., Johnson, S. and Linton, P. 1995. The language of psychology: APA style as epistemology. American Psychologist, 50: 428
34. Marsh, H. W., Jayasinghe, U. W. and Bond, N. W. 2008. Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist, 63: 160-168.
35. McNutt, R. A., Evans, A. T., Fletcher, R. H. and Fletcher, S. W. 1990. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 263: 1371-1376.
36. McWilliam, R. A. 2000. New guidelines and standards for JEI authors and reviewers. Journal of Early Intervention, 23: 75-76.
37. Morey, A., Garner, A., Faruque, F. and Yang, G. 2011. Evolutionary trends in peer review. Journal of Allied Health, 40: 156-160.
38. Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B. and Harris, K. R. 2005. Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71: 137-148.
39. Ogles, B. M., Lunnen, K. M. and Bonesteel, K. 2001. Clinical significance: History, application, and current practice. Clinical Psychology Review, 21: 421-446.
40. Rennie, D. 2003. "Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale.". In Peer review in health science, 2nd ed. Edited by: Godlee, F. and Jefferson, T. 1-13. London: BMJ Books.
41. Riley-Tillman, T. C., Chafouleas, S. M., Blom-Hoffman, J., Volpe, R. J., McDougal, J. L. and Miller, D. N. 2006. The value of applicability: Introducing the practitioner's edition on promoting academic success. Psychology in the Schools, 43: 1-5.
42. Rothwell, P. M. and Martyn, C. N. 2000. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Brain, 123: 1964-1969.
43. Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Carpenter, J., Godlee, F. and Smith, R. 2004. Effects of training on quality of peer review: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 328: 673-678.
44. Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Godlee, F., Osorio, L. and Smith, R. 2008. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101: 507-514.
45. Schulz, K., Altman, D. and Moher, D. 2010. CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Medicine, 8: 18-28.
46. Scott-Lichter D., & the Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors. 2009. CSE's white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications. Retrieved fromhttp://www.councilscienceeditors.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3331
47. Shavelson, R. J. and Towne, L. 2002. Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
48. Smaby, M. H., Crews, J. and Downing, T. 1999. Publishing in scholarly journals: Part II-Is it an attitude or technique? It's a technique. Counselor Education and Supervision, 38: 227-236.
49. Smith, R. 2006. The trouble with medical journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99: 115-119.
50. Strayhorn, J. Jr., McDermott, J. F. Jr. and Tanguay, P. 1993. An intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150: 947-952.
51. Suls, J. and Martin, R. 2009. The air we breathe: A critical look at practices and alternatives in the peer-review process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4: 40-50.
52. Trafimow, D. and Rice, S. 2009. What if social scientists had reviewed great scientific works of the past?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4: 65-78.
53. Ware, M. and Monkman, M. 2008. Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community-an international study. Publishing Research Consortium. Retrieved fromhttp://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PeerReviewFullPRCReport-final.pdf
54. Weller, A. C. 2002. Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses. Medford, NJ: Information Today Inc.
55. Whitehurst, G. J. 1984. Interrater agreement for journal manuscript reviews. American Psychologist, 39: 22-28.
56. Ziman, J. M. 1969. Information, communication, knowledge. Nature, 224: 318-324.