The Principal-Agent Problem in Peer Review

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 66, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 297-308

  García, Jose A ^a   Rodriguez Sánchez, Rosa ^a   Fdez Valdivia, Joaquín ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

Author keywords

editors; human resources management; scholarly publishing

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; FILE EDITORS; MOTIVATION; PERSONNEL; PUBLISHING; RISK MANAGEMENT;

AGENCY THEORY; HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT; IN-DEPTH KNOWLEDGE; INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES; JOURNAL EDITORS; PEER-REVIEW PROCESS; PRINCIPAL-AGENT PROBLEMS; SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING;

REVIEWS;

EID: 84930820884     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23169     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Anonymous. (2003). Coping with peer rejection. Nature, 425 (6959), 645.
2. Armstrong, J.S., (1997). Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, 63-84.
3. Arrow, K., (1968). The economics of moral Hazard: Further comment. American Economic Review, 58 (3), 537-539.
4. Bebchuk, L., &, Fried, J., (2004). Pay without performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. Braben, D.W., (2004). Pioneering research: A risk worth taking. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.
6. Bradley, J.V., (1981). Pernicious publication practices. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 18, 31-34.
7. Burnham, J.C., (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 263 (10), 1323-1329.
8. Campanario, J.M., (1998a). Peer review for journals as it stands today Part 1. Science Communication, 19 (3), 181-211.
9. Campanario, J.M., (1998b). Peer review for journals as it stands today Part 2. Science Communication, 19 (4), 277-306.
10. Campanario, J.M., &, Martin, B., (2004). Challenging dominant physics paradigms. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 18 (3), 421-438.
11. Chubin, D.E., &, Hackett, E.J., (1990). Peerless science: Peer review and U.S. science policy. Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York Press.
12. Daily, C., Dalton, D., &, Cannella, A., Jr., (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue & data. Academy of Management Review, 28 (3), 371-382.
13. Demsetz, R., Saidenberg, M., &, Strahan, P., (1997). Agency Problems and Risk Taking at Banks. FRB of New York Staff Report, 29.
14. Eisenhardt, K., (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14 (1), 57-74.
15. Eriksson, L., (2004). Love the maverick. New Scientist, 183 (2461), 4.
16. Garcia, J.A., Rodriguez-Sanchez, R., &, Fdez-Valdivia, J., (2014). The selection of high quality manuscripts. Scientometrics, 98 (1), 299-313. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1034-4
17. Gibbs, M.J., (1995). Incentive compensation in a corporate hierarchy. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19 (2-3), 247-277.
18. Gomez-Mejia, L., Wiseman, R., &, Dykes, B., (2005). Agency problems in diverse contexts: A global perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 42 (7), 1507-1517.
19. Heath, J., (2009). The uses and abuses of agency theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19 (4), 497-528.
20. Hendrikse, G., (2003). Economics and management of organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
21. Hickok, G., &, Poeppel, D., (2011). Should peer reviewers be paid for their work? Talking Brains: News and views on the neural organization of language. Retrieved from http://www.talkingbrains.org/
22. Higgs, R., (2007). Peer review, publication in top journals, scientific consensus, and so forth. Independent Institute. Retrieved from http://www.independent.org/
23. Horton, R., (2000). Genetically modified food: Consternation, confusion, and crack-up. The Medical Journal of Australia, 172 (4), 148-149.
24. Jelicic, M., &, Merckelbach, H., (2002). Peer-review: Let's imitate the lawyers! Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 38, 406-407.
25. Jensen, M., (1989). Eclipse of the public corporation. Harvard Business Review, 67 (5), 61-74.
26. Jensen, M., &, Smith, C., (1985). Stockholder, manager, and creditor interests: Applications of agency theory. In, E. Altman, &, M. Subrahmanyam, (Eds.), Recent advances in corporate finance (pp. 93-131). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin Professional Publishing.
27. Kuhn, T.S., (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions 50th anniversary edition (p. 264). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
28. Lan, L., &, Heracleous, L., (2010). Rethinking agency theory: The view from law. Academy of Management Review, 35 (2), 294-314.
29. 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 (1), 2-17.
30. Mahoney, M.J., (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1 (2), 161175.
31. Martin, B., (1997). Suppression Stories. Fund for Intellectual Dissent, Wollengong. Australia.
32. Nickerson, R.S., (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2 (2), 175-220.
33. Perrow, C., (1986). Economic theories of organization. Theory and Society, 15 (1/2), 11-45.
34. Prendergast, C., (1999). The provision of incentives in firms. Journal of Economic Literature, 37 (1), 7-63.
35. Sappington, D.E.M., (1991). Incentives in principal-agent relationships. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (2), 45-66.
36. Shapiro, S., (2005). Agency theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 31 (1), 263-284.
37. Travis, G.D.L., &, Collins, H.M., (1991). New light on old boys: Cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16 (3), 322-341.
38. Wesseley, S., (1998). Peer review of grant applications: What do we know? Lancet, 352 (9124), 301-305.