Advancing kinesiology through improved peer review

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

Volumn 85, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 127-135

  Knudson, Duane V ^a   Morrow, James R ^b   Thomas, Jerry R ^b  

^a TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

publication; referee; research; scholarship

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; KINESIOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; TRENDS;

HUMANS; KINESIOLOGY, APPLIED; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84901280452     PISSN: 02701367     EISSN: 21683824     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2014.898117     Document Type: Review

References (56)

1. Albers, C. A., Floyd, R. G., Fuhrmann, M. J., & Martinez, 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. Alpert, J. S. (2007). Peer review: The best of the blemished? American Journal of Medicine, 120, 287-288. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2007.02.013
3. Amonette, W. E., English, K. L., & Ottenbacher, K. J. (2010). Nullius in verba: A call for the incorporation of evidence-based practice into the discipline of exercise science. Sports Medicine, 40, 449-457.
4. Armstrong, J. S. (1997). Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Science andEngineeringEthics, 3, 63-84.
5. Baker, D. (2002). The peer review process in science education journals.Research in Science Education, 32, 171-180.
6. Benos, D. J., Bashari, E., Caves, J. M., Gaggar, A., Kapoor, N., LaFrance, M., . Zotov, A. (2007). The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in Physiology Education, 31, 145-152. doi:10.1152/advan.00104.2006.
7. Black, N., van Rooyen, S., Godless, F., Smith, R., & Evans, S. (1998). What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 231-233.
8. Bornmann, L., & Mungra, P. (2011). Improving peer review in scholarly journals. European Science Editing, 37, 41-43.
9. Burham, J. C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1323-1329.
10. Callaham, M. L., Baxt, W. G., Waeckerle, J. F., & Wears, R. L. (1998). Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 229-231.
11. Callaham, M. L., Knopp, R. K., & Gallagher, E. J. (2002). Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: Two randomized trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2781-2783.
12. Callaham, M. L., & McCulloch, C. (2011). Longitudinal trends in the performance of scientific peer reviewers. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 57, 141-148.
13. Callaham, M. L., & Schriger, D. L. (2002). Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal reviewers. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 40, 323-328.
14. Campanario, J. M. (1998). Peer review for journals as it stands today-Part 1. Science Communication, 19, 181-211.
15. Cardinal, B. J. (2013). Service vs. serve-us: What will your legacy be? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 84(5), 4-6.
16. Committee on Publication Ethics. (2011). Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. Retrieved from http:// publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct.
17. Faulkner, G., Taylor, A., Ferrence, R., Munro, S., &Selby, P. (2006). Exercise science and the development of evidence-based practice: A 'better practices' framework. European Journal of Sport Science, 6, 117-126.
18. Hames, I. (2007). Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: Guidelines for good practice. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
19. Hardie, J. (2010). Is this article worth reading? A critical analysis of peer review. Oral Health, 100(9), 70-72, 74, 76-77.
20. Hargens, L. L. (1988). Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review, 53, 139-151.
21. Hartley, J. (2012). Refereeing academic articles in the information age. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 520-528.
22. Hirst, A., & Altman, D. G. (2012). Are peer reviews encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals. PLoS ONE, 7, e35621. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035621
23. Hojat, M., Gonnella, J. S., & Caelleigh, A. S. (2003). Impartial judgment by the 'gatekeepers' of science: Fallibility and accountability of the peer review process. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 8, 75-96.
24. Holt, N. L., & Spence, J. C. (2012). A review of the peer review process and implications for sport and exercise psychology. Athletic Insight, 14(1). Retrieved from http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol14Iss1/Feature.htm
25. Horrobin, D. F. (2001). Something rotten at the core of science? Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 22, 51-52.
26. Horton, R. (1998). The journal ombudsperson: Astep towards scientific press oversight. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 289-299.
27. Houry, D., Green, S., & Callaham, M. (2012). Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial. BMC Medical Education, 12, 83.
28. James, C. R., & Bates, B. T. (1997). Experimental and statistical design issues in human movement research. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 1, 55-69.
29. Jefferson, T., Rudin, M., Brodney Fose, S., & Davidoff, F. (2008). Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2, doi:10.1002/14651858. MR000016.pub3
30. Jefferson, T., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2786-2790.
31. Kachewar, S. G., & Sankaye, S. B. (2013). Reviewer index: A new proposal of rewarding the reviewer. Mens Sana Monographs, 11, 274-284.
32. 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.
33. Knudson, D. (2005). Statistical and reporting errors in applied biomechanics research. In Q. Wang (Ed.), Proceedings of the XXIII International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports (Vol. 2, pp. 811-814). Beijing, China: China Institute of Sport Science.
34. Knudson, D. (2007). Analysis of multiple comparison errors using ground reaction force data. In H.-J. Menzel & M. H. Chagas (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXVth International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports (pp. 176-179). Belo Horizontae, Brazil: Federal University of Mineas Gerais.
35. Knudson, D. (2009). Significant and meaningful effects in sports biomechanics research. Sports Biomechanics, 8, 96-104.
36. Knudson, D., Elliott, B., & Ackland, T. (2012). Citation of evidence for research and application in kinesiology. Kinesiology Review, 1, 129-136.
37. Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38. Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 2-17.
39. Lundbrook, J. (1998). Multiple comparison procedures updated. Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology, 25, 1032-1037.
40. Luty, J., Arokiadass, S. M. R., Easow, J. M., & Anapreddy, J. R. (2009). Preferential publication of editorial board members in medical specialty journals. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 200-202.
41. Miller, C. C. (2006). Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias, and dissensus. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 425-431.
42. Morrow, J. R., Jr, Bray, M. S., Fulton, J. E., & Thomas, J. R. (1992). Interrater reliability of 1987-1991 Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport reviews. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63, 200-204.
43. Morrow, J. R., Jr, & Frankiewicz, R. G. (1979). Strategies for the analysis of repeated and multiple measures designs. Research Quarterly, 50, 297-305.
44. Mullineaux, D. R., Bartlett, R. M., & Bennett, S. (2001). Research design and statistics in biomechanics and motor control. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 739-760.
45. Park, R. J. (1980). The Research Quarterly and its antecedents. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, 1-22.
46. Raff, H., & Brown, D. (2013). Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals. Journal of Applied Physiology, 115, 295-296.
47. Rothwell, P. M., & Martyn, C. N. (2000). Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Brain, 123, 1964-1969.
48. Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Carpenter, J., Godlee, F., & Smith, R. (2004). Effects of training on quality of peer review: Randomized controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 328, 673-675.
49. Schwartz, S. J., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2009). The peer-review and editorial system. Ways to fix something that might be broken. Perspective on Psychological Science, 4, 54-61.
50. Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 178-182.
51. Souder, L. (2011). The ethics of scholarly peer review: A review of the literature. Learned Publishing, 24, 55-74.
52. Vecchio, R. P. (2006). Journal reviewer ratings: Issues of particularistic bias, agreement, and predictive validity within the manuscript review process. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26, 228-242. doi:10.1177/0270467606288595
53. Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2012). Cooperation between research institutions and journals on publication integrity cases: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Maturitas, 72, 165-169.
54. Ware, M., & Monkman, M. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspectives of the scholarly community-an international study. Loodrecht, The Netherlands: Publishing Research Consortium.
55. Wheeler, B. (2011). The ontology of the scholarly journal and the place of peer review. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42, 307-322. doi:10.1087/20110109.
56. Zhu, W. (2012). Sadly, the earth is still round ( p , 0.05). Journal of Sport and Health Science, 1, 9-11.