Adverse selection of reviewers

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 66, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 1252-1262

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

Author keywords

editors; human information resources; reviews

Indexed keywords

FILE EDITORS; REVIEWS;

ADVERSE SELECTION; FINITE SEQUENCE; INFORMATION RESOURCE; JOURNAL EDITORS; OPTIMAL CONTRACT; PRIVATE INFORMATION; REVIEW PROCESS; SCHOLARLY JOURNALS;

RISK MANAGEMENT;

EID: 84947078153     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23249     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Appelbaum, S.H., &, Kamal, R., (2000). An analysis of the utilization and effectiveness of non-financial incentives in small business. Journal of Management Development, 19 (9), 733-763.
2. Armstrong, J.S., (1997). Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, 63-84.
3. Burnham, J.C., (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA, 263 (10), 1323-1329.
4. Callaham, M.L., Baxt, W.G., Waeckerle, J.F., &, Wears, R.L., (1998). Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA, 280 (3), 229-231.
5. Callaham, M.L., &, Tercier, J., (2007). The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Medicine, 4 (1), e40.
6. Campanario, J.M., (1998a). Peer review for journals as it stands today-Part 1. Science Communication, 19 (3), 181-211.
7. Campanario, J.M., (1998b). Peer review for journals as it stands today-Part 2. Science Communication, 19 (4), 277-306.
8. Campanario, J.M., &, Martin, B., (2004). Challenging dominant physics paradigms. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 18 (3), 421-438.
9. Chubin, D.E., &, Hackett, E.J., (1990). Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. Stony Brook, NY, USA: State University of New York Press.
10. Coping with peer rejection. (2003). Nature, 425 (6959), 645.
11. de Mesnard, L., (2010). On Hochberg et al.'s "The tragedy of the reviewer commons." Scientometrics, 84, 903-917.
12. Eisenhardt, K., (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14 (1), 57-74.
13. Fehr, E., &, Falk, A., (2002). Psychological foundations of incentives. European Economic Review, 46, 687-724.
14. Garcia, J.A., Rodriguez-Sanchez, R., &, Fdez-Valdivia, J., (2014). The principal-agent problem in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23169
15. Gershkov, A., &, Perry, M., (2012). Dynamic contracts with moral hazard and adverse selection. Review of Economic Studies, 79, 268-306.
16. Gomez-Mejia, L., Wiseman, R., &, Dykes, B., (2005). Agency problems in diverse contexts: A global perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 42 (7), 1507-1517.
17. Hendrikse, G., (2003). Economics and Management of Organizations. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill Education.
18. 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/
19. Jelicic, M., &, Merckelbach, H., (2002). Peer-review: Let's imitate the lawyers! Cortex, 38, 406-407.
20. Kliewer, M.A., Freed, K.S., DeLong, D.M., Pickhardt, P.J., &, Provenzale, J.M., (2005). Reviewing the reviewers: Comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology. American Journal of Roentgenology, 184, 1731-1735.
21. Kohn, A., (1993a). Why incentive plans cannot work. Harvard Business Review, September-October, 54-63.
22. Kohn, A., (1993b). Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes. Boston, MA, USA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
23. Loureiro, P. R., &, Sachsida, A., (2007). Adverse selection, asymmetric information and discrimination in the labor market. Planejamento e Polticas Públicas, 30, 71-78.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Martin, B., (1997). Suppression Stories. Wollengong, Australia: Fund for Intellectual Dissent.
27. Nickerson, R.S., (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2 (2), 175-220.
28. Paoletti, E., (2009, November). A Reviewer Factor (RF) for finding and retaining good reviewers. Elsevier Editors' Update, 28.
29. Shapiro, S., (2005). Agency theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 31 (1), 263-284.
30. Thomson Reuters. (2013). ScholarOne Manuscripts. Retrieved from http://scholarone.com/products/manuscript
31. 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.
32. Wright, P.M., (1994). Goal setting and monetary incentives: Motivational tools that can work too well. Compensation and Benefits Review, 26, 41-49.