Practical suggestions for improving scholarly peer review quality and reducing cycle times

Communications of the Association for Information Systems

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 274-283

  Ralph, Paul ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Peer review

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

CYCLE TIME; LONG CYCLES; MANAGEMENT JOURNALS; PEER REVIEW; PEER-REVIEW PROCESS; REVIEW CYCLE; SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS;

HARDWARE;

EID: 84957011819     PISSN: 15293181     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17705/1CAIS.03813     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Acharya, A., Verstak, A., Suzuki, H., Henderson, S., Iakhiaev, M., Lin, C. C. Y., & Shetty, N. (2014). Rise of the rest: The growing impact of non-elite journals. arXiv: 1410.2217.
2. Barkawi, T. (2013). The neoliberal assault on academia. Al Jazeera. Retrieved from http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/20134238284530760.html
3. Björk, B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 914-923.
4. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60-65.
5. Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7.
6. Brown, T. (2004). Peer review and the acceptance of new scientific ideas. London, UK: Sense about Science.
7. Campanario, J. M. (1995). Commentary on influential books and journal articles initially rejected because of negative referees’ evaluations. Science Communication, 16, 304-325.
8. Chalmers, I., Glasziou, P., & Godlee, F. (2013). All trials must be registered and the results published. BMJ, 346, f105-f105.
9. Cole, S., Cole, J. R., & Simon, G. A. (1981). Chance and consensus in peer review. Science, 214(4523), 881–886.
10. Evans, D. A. T., McNutt, R. A., Fletcher, S. W., & Fletcher, R. H. (1993). The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 8(8), 422-428.
11. Fischoff, B. (1982). Debiasing. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
12. Gollogly, L., & Momen, H. (2006). Ethical dilemmas in scientific publication: Pitfalls and solutions for editors. Revista de Saúde Pública, 40, 24-29.
13. Iivari, J. (2016). How to improve the quality of peer reviews? Three suggestions for system-level changes. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 38, 263-273.
14. Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996). Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials, 17(1), 1-12.
15. Justice, A. C., Cho, M. K., Winker, M. A., Berlin, J. A., Rennie, D., & Investigators, T. P. (1998). Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 280(3), 240-242.
16. Larrick, R. P. (2008). Debiasing. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 316-338). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
17. Lock, S. (1991). A difficult balance. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
18. 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.
19. McNutt, R. A., Evans, A. T., Fletcher, R. H., & Fletcher, S. W. (1990). The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial. JAMA, 263(10), 1371-1376.
20. Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 187-195.
21. Rothwell, P. M., & Martyn, C. N. (2000). Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Brain, 123, 1964-1969.
22. Schwaber, K. (2004). Agile project management with Scrum. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.
23. Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 178-182.
24. van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., & Smith, R. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: A randomised trial. BMJ, 318(7175), 23-27.
25. Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
26. Wenneras, C., & Wold, A. (2001). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387(6631), 341-343.
27. Ziman, J. M. (1968). Public knowledge: An essay concerning the social dimension of science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.