Peer review: Agreement and disagreement [Book Review]

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19 (3):534-536 (1996)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Rl In response to Somit & Peterson's call for multiple journal manuscript submissions, and consistent with Cicchetti (1991a and 1991b), counterarguments are presented. The policy for multiple submissions is difficult to defend scientifically ana would place an unwarranted burden on both reviewers and journal editors. As such the policy is again rejected. R2 As earlier hypothesized, referee agreement on manuscripts submitted to a major journal in chemistry was significantly higher for acceptance than for rejection. This is consistent with the high acceptance rate (>70%) of this journal. There is significantly more referee agreement on rejection than on acceptance for manuscripts submitted to major journals, in behavioral science and medicine. These journals have high rejection rates (often >70%)

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,709

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Journal response time: A case for multiple submission.Albert Somit & Steven A. Peterson - 1996 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19 (3):533-534.
Evidence for the effectiveness of Peer review.Robert H. Fletcher & Suzanne W. Fletcher - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):35-50.
Ethical issues in journal Peer-review.J. Angelo Corlett - 2005 - Journal of Academic Ethics 2 (4):355-366.
‘Peer review’ culture.Malcolm Atkinson - 2001 - Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2):193-204.
Moral Compromise.David Archard - 2012 - Philosophy 87 (3):403-420.
Locke and Sensitive Knowledge.Keith Allen - 2013 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 51 (2):249-266.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-21

Downloads
19 (#796,059)

6 months
4 (#778,909)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?