Peer Review: A Study of Reliability

Peer Review: A Study of Reliability

A summary of findings presented in Stephen J. Ceci's & Douglas P. Peters's "A Naturalistic Study of Peer Review in Psychology: The Fate of Published Articles, Resubmitted" (The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1982, 5, 187-252). Thirteen articles that had been previously publis...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Change (New Rochelle, N.Y.) N.Y.), 1982-09, Vol.14 (6), p.44-48
Hauptverfasser: Ceci, Stephen J., Peters, Douglas P.
Format: Magazinearticle
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Academia
Academic/Academics/Academy/ Academia
Author affiliation
Career Mobility
Colleges
Funding
Grants
Health administration
Peer review
Peer Review - standards
Peer/Peers
Periodicals as Topic
Professional development
Psychology
Publication/Publications
Publishing
Research grants
Universities
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:A summary of findings presented in Stephen J. Ceci's & Douglas P. Peters's "A Naturalistic Study of Peer Review in Psychology: The Fate of Published Articles, Resubmitted" (The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1982, 5, 187-252). Thirteen articles that had been previously published in top, nonblind psychology journals were altered slightly (eg, author's names & affiliations were changed), then resubmitted to the same journals for publication to investigate any "halo" effect produced by peers' recognition of a famous name/institution. Eliminating three that were detected, nine of the remaining ten articles were rejected, providing a convincing argument for the unreliability of peer review. Implications for professional development in academia, eg, tenure & research funding, which are heavily based on publication, are discussed. K. Hyatt
ISSN:0009-1383
1939-9146
DOI:10.1080/00091383.1982.10569910