Report of the Ad Hoc committee on double-blind refereeing

Statistical Science

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 1993, Pages 310-317

  Cox, David ^a   Gleser, Leon ^b   Perlman, Michael ^c   Reid, Nancy ^d   Roeder, Kathryn ^e  

^a NUFFIELD COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^e YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Peer review; Publication bias; Refereeing

Indexed keywords

EID: 84972511476     PISSN: 08834237     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1214/ss/1177010904     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Adair (1982). Discussion of "Peer-review practices of psychological journals," by D. P. Peters and S. J. Ceci. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5.
2. Altman, N. (Chair), Banks, D., Chen, P.-Y., Duffy, D., Harwick, J., Léger, C., Owen, A. and Stukel, T. (1991). Meeting the needs of new statistical researchers. A report by the New Researcher’s Committee of the IMS. Statist Sci. 6 163-174.
3. Altman, N., Angers, J. F., Banks, D., Duffy, D., Hardwick, J., Léger, C., Martin, M., Nolan, D. (Chair), Owen, A., Politis, D., Roeder, K., Sriram, T. N., Stukel, T. and Ying, Z. (1992). Rejoinder to Readers’ comments to the New Researchers’ Report. Statist. Sci. 7 265-266.
4. Beyer, J. (1978). Editorial policies and practices among leading journals in four scientific fields. Sociological Quarterly 19 68-88.
5. Bowen, D. D., Perloff, R. and Jacoby, J. (1972). Improving manuscript evaluation procedures. American Psychologist 27 221-225.
6. Cicchetti, D. V. (1980). Reliability of reviews for the American Psychologist: A biostatistical assessment of the data. American Psychologist 35 300-303.
7. Cicchetti, D. V. and Eron, L. D. (1979). The reliability of manuscript reviewing for the Journal of Abnormal Psychology. In Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section 596-600. Amer. Statist. Assoc., Washington, D.C.
8. Cole, J. R. and Cole, S. (1972). The Ortega hypothesis: Citation analysis suggests that only a few scientists contribute to scientific progress. Science 1978 368-374.
9. Crandall, R. (1978). Interrater agreement on manuscripts is not so bad! American Psychologist 33 623-624.
10. Crane, D. (1967). The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals. American Sociologist 32 195-201.
11. Fleiss, J. L. (1982). Deception in the study of the peer-review process. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 210-211.
12. Garfunkel, J. M., Lawson, E. E., Hamrick, H. J. and Ulshen, M. H. (1990). Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author’s evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts. Journal of the American Medical Association 263 1376-1378.
13. Garfunkel, J. M., Ulshen, M. H., Hamrick, H. J. and Lawson, E. E. (1990). Problems identified by secondary review of accepted manuscripts. Journal of the American Medical Association 263 1369-1370.
14. Goldberg, P. A. (1968). Are women prejudiced against women? Transactions 5 28-30.
15. Goodstein, L. D. and Brazis, K. L. (1970). Credibility of psychol-ogists: An empirical study. Psychological Reports 27 835-838.
16. Gordon, M. D. (1980). The role of referees in scientific communi-cation. In The Psychology of Written Communication (J. Hartley, ed.) 263-275. Kogan Page, London.
17. Gottfredson, S. D. (1978). Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgements. American Psychologist 33 920-934.
18. Hendrick, C. (1976). Editorial comment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2 207-208.
19. Hendrick, C. (1977). Editorial comment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 3 1-2.
20. Horrobin, D. F. (1982). Peer review: A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous for science. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 217-218.
21. Ingelfinger, F. J. (1974). Peer review in biomedical publication. American Journal of Medicine 56 686-692.
22. Lazarus, D. (1982). Inter-referee agreement and acceptance rates in physics. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 219.
23. Levenson, H., Buford, B., Bonno, B. and Davis, L. (1975). Are women still prejudiced against women? A replica and extension of Goldberg’s study. Journal of Psychology 89 67-71.
24. Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research 1 161-175.
25. Mahoney, M. J., Kazdin, A. E. and Königsberg, M. (1978). Getting published: effects of self-citation and institutional affiliation. Cognitive Therapy and Research 2 69-70.
26. Mccartney, J. L. (1973). Manuscript reviewing. Sociological Quarterly 14 290, 444-446.
27. Mcnutt, R. A., Evans, A. T. and Fletcher, S. W. (1990). The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 263 1371-1375.
28. Mcreynolds, P. (1971). Reliability of ratings of research papers. American Psychologist 26 400-401.
29. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in science. Science 159 56-63.
30. Moore, M. (1978). Discrimination or favoritism? Sex bias in book reviews. American Psychologist 33 936-938.
31. Oromaner, M. (1977). Professional age and the reception of sociological publications: A test of the Zuckerman-Merton hypothesis. Social Studies of Science 7 381-388.
32. Paludi, M.A. and Bauer, W. D. (1983). Goldberg revisited: what’s in an author’s name. Sex Roles 9 387-390.
33. Peters, D. P. and Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (with discussion). The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 187-255.
34. Pfeffer, J., Leong, A. and Strehl, K. (1977). Paradigm development and particularism: Journal publication in three scientific disciplines. Social Forces 55 938-951.
35. Rosenblatt, A. and Kirk, S. A. (1980). Recognition of authors in blind review of manuscripts. Journal of Social Service Research 3 383-394.
36. Ross, C. (1982). Rejecting published work: similar fate for fiction. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 236.
37. Rowney, J. A. and Zenisek, T. J. (1980). Manuscript characteristics influencing reviewers’ decisions. Canadian Psychology 21 17-21.
38. Scarr, S. (1982). Anosmic peer review: a rose by another name is evidently not a rose. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 237-238.
39. Scarr, S. and Weber, B. L. R. (1978). The reliability of reviews for the American Psychologist. American Psychologist 33 935.
40. Scott, W. A. (1974). Interreferee agreement on some characteris-tics of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. American Psychologist 29 698-702.
41. Thomas, G. J. (1982). Perhaps it was right to reject the resubmit-ted manuscripts. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 240.
42. Tobach, E. (1980). "… that ye be judged." In An Evaluation of the Peer Review System in Psychological Research (J. Demarest, Chairman). Open Forum at the American Psychological Convention, Montreal.
43. Watkins, M. W. (1979). Chance and interrater agreement on manuscripts. American Psychologist 34 796-797.
44. Yalow, R. S. (1982). Competency testing for reviewers and edi-tors. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 240-241.
45. Yoels, W. (1974). The structure of scientific fields and the alloca-tions of editorship on scientific journals: Some observations on the politics of knowledge. Sociological Quarterly 15 264-276.
46. Yotopoulos, P. A. (1961). Institutional affiliation of the contribu-tors to three professional journals. American Economic Review 51 665-670.
47. Zuckerman, H. (1970). Stratification in American science. Sociological Inquiry 40 235-257.
48. Zuckerman, H. and Merton, R. (1973). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalization, structure and functions of the referee system. In The Sociology of Science (N. Storer, ed.). Univ. Chicago Press.