Bias and effort in peer review

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 66, Issue 10, 2015, Pages 2020-2030

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

Author keywords

editors; evaluation; scholarly publishing

Indexed keywords

FILE EDITORS; PUBLISHING;

EVALUATION; JOURNAL EDITORS; MONITORING MECHANISMS; PEER REVIEW; PEER-REVIEW PROCESS; SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING;

REVIEWS;

EDITOR; HUMAN; MONITORING; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION;

EID: 84946236513     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23307     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Bornmann, L., &, Hans-Dieter, D., (2010). The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review. Library & Information Science Research, 32 (1), 5-12.
2. Bubb, R., &, Warren, P.L., (2014). Optimal agency bias and regulatory review. The Journal of Legal Studies, 43 (1), 95-135.
3. Burnham, J.C., (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 263 (10), 1323-1329.
4. Campanario, J.M., (1998a). Peer review for journals as it stands today-Part 1. Science Communication, 19 (3), 181-211.
5. Campanario, J.M., (1998b). Peer review for journals as it stands today-Part 2. Science Communication, 19 (4), 277-306.
6. Campanario, J.M., &, Martin, B., (2004). Challenging dominant physics paradigms. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 18 (3), 421-438.
7. 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.
8. Fehr, E., &, Falk, A., (2002). Psychological foundations of incentives. European Economic Review, 46 (4-5), 687-724.
9. Fiske, D.W., &, Fogg, L., (1990). But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper! Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. The American Psychologist, 45 (5), 591-598.
10. Garcia, J.A., Rodriguez-Sanchez, R., &, Fdez-Valdivia, J., (2014a). The principal-agent problem in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. doi: 10.1002/asi.23169
11. Garcia, J.A., Rodriguez-Sanchez, R., &, Fdez-Valdivia, J., (2014b). Adverse selection of reviewers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. doi: 10.1002/asi.23249
12. 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 (3), 406-407.
13. Kohn, A., (1993a). Why incentive plans cannot work. Harvard Business Review, September-October, 54-63.
14. Kohn, A., (1993b). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise, and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
15. 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.
16. Mahoney, M.J., (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1 (2), 161-175.
17. Martin, B., (1997). Suppression stories. Fund for Intellectual Dissent PO Box U129, Wollongong NSW 2500, Australia.
18. Merton, R.K., (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19. Nickerson, R.S., (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2 (2), 175-220.
20. Sternlieb, I., &, Scheinberg, I.H., (1968). Prevention of Wilson's disease in asymptomatic patients. New England Journal of Medicine, 278, 352-359.
21. 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.
22. Wright, P.M., (1994). Goal setting and monetary incentives: motivational tools that can work too well. Compensation and Benefits Review, 26 (3), 41-49.