Some reactions to manuscript review from a questionnaire study
Review products
Commentary onPetersDouglas P. and CeciStephen J. (1982) Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. BBS 5:187–255.
Published online by Cambridge University Press:
04 February 2010
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)
Article purchase
Temporarily unavailable
References
AAUP Reports (1979) Academic freedom and tenure: University of Maryland. Academe65:223. [RLB]Google Scholar
American Psychological Association (1973) Eight APA journals initiate controversial blind reviewing. APA Monitor3:5. [DPP]Google Scholar
Beaver, D. deB. (1982) On the failure to detect previously published research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences5:199–200. [RB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, R. L. (1980) Academic freedom and peer reviews of research proposals and papers. American Journal of Agricultural Economics62:639–46. [RLB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyer, J. M. (1982) Explaining an unsurprising demonstration: High rejection rates and scarcity of space. Behavioral and Brain Sciences5:202–3. [RB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boice, R. & Jones, F. (1984) Why academicians don't write. Journal of Higher Education55:1–16. [RB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brackbill, Y. & Korten, F. (1970) Journal reviewing practices: Authors' and APA members' suggestions for revision. American Psychologist25:937–40. [RB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, J. V. (1981) Overconfidence in ignorant experts. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society17:82–84. [DPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceci, S. J. & Peters, D. P. (1984) How “blind” is blind review?American Psychologist39:1491–94. [DPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chubin, D. E. (1982) Reforming peer review: From recycling to reflexivity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences5:204. [RB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. (1980) Reliability of reviews for the American Psychologist: A biostatistical assessment of the data. American Psychologist35:300–303. [DPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, W. M. & Catt, V. (1977) Productivity ratings of graduate programs in psychology based on publication in the journals of the American Psychological Association. American Psychologist32:793–813. [DPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, D. (1967) The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals. American Sociologist32:195–201. [DPP]Google Scholar
Endler, N. S., Rushton, J. P. & Roediger, H. L. (1978) Productivity and scholarly impact (citations) of British, Canadian, and U.S. departments of psychology. American Psychologist33:1064–82. [DPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, M. (1978) Discrimination or favoritism? Sex bias in book reviews. American Psychologist33:936–38. [RB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Over, R. (1982) What is the source of bias in peer review?Behavioral and Brain Sciences5:229–30. [RB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, D. P. & Ceci, S. J. (1982) Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences5:187–255. [RB, RLB, CNC, DPP, RJS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roose, K. D. & Anderson, C. J. (1970) A rating of graduate programs. American Council on Education. [DPP]Google Scholar