Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation

  title={Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation},
  author={Js Armstrong},
  journal={Science and Engineering Ethics},
  • J. Armstrong
  • Published 1 March 1997
  • Business
  • Science and Engineering Ethics
This paper reviews the published empirical evidence concerning journal peer review consisting of 68 papers, all but three published since 1975. Peer review improves quality, but its use to screen papers has met with limited success. Current procedures to assure quality and fairness seem to discourage scientific advancement, especially important innovations, because findings that conflict with current beliefs are often judged to have defects. Editors can use procedures to encourage the… 
Evaluating traditional peer-review processes and their alternatives: An opinionated discussion
In this discussion, the core assumptions of traditional peer-review processes are evaluated, current alternatives to traditionalpeer-review are assessed, and recommendations for authors, reviewers, Associate Editors, and Editors are provided.
Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today—Part 1
This two-part article reviews the current literature on journal peer review. Research on this subject has grown during the 1980s and 1990s, and has increased our awareness of both the myths and facts
Blind Peer Review by Academic Journals
Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors
Some of the steps editors should take to promote quality, fairness and integrity in different stages of the peer review process are considered and some recommendations for editorial conduct and decision-making are made.
What Determines Time Spent in Peer Reviews? – Evidence from The Accounting Review
The existing empirical literature on the peer review process in general and in accounting in particular has primarily focused on the fairness of the process and reasons for rejections of submitted
Bias in peer review: a case study.
Analysis of three datasets providing information on the attributes of authors and reviewers and review outcomes finds no evidence of bias in terms of gender, or the language or prestige of author and reviewer institutions in any of the three datasets, but some weak evidence of regional bias in all three.
Peer review and innovation
  • R. Spier
  • Economics
    Science and engineering ethics
  • 2002
There are many reasons for conservatism and reservation as to the ability of a grant allocation process based on peer review to deliver truly innovative investigations.
Quality and Peer Review of Research: An Adjudicating Role for Editors
  • D. Newton
  • Psychology
    Accountability in research
  • 2010
This study describes shortcomings of the peer review process and condenses them into an explanatory framework involving situational, personal, social, and ethical factors.
Emerging trends in peer review—a survey
Two major trends are identified: the rapidly expanding role of preprint servers that dispense with traditional peer review altogether, and the growth of “non-selective review,” focusing on papers' scientific quality rather than their perceived importance and novelty.


Advances in peer review research: an introduction
Peer review is a topic of considerable concern to many researchers, and there is a correspondingly large body of research on the topic. This issue of Science and Engineering Ethics presents recent
Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review
In a study of whether manuscripts are improved by peer review and editing, articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine were improved in 33 of 34 dimensions of reporting quality, but published articles still had room for improvement.
Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again
Abstract A growing interest in and concern about the adequacy and fairness of modern peer-review practices in publication and funding are apparent across a wide range of scientific disciplines.
The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation
Abstract The reliability of peer review of scientific documents and the evaluative criteria scientists use to judge the work of their peers are critically reexamined with special attention to the
Does the need for agreement among reviewers inhibit the publication controversial findings?
Controversial empirical papers are expected to receive harsh treatment in peer review, but our survey indicates that such works occasionally get published, sometimes without much peer agreement. More
Commentary: On Influential Books and Journal Articles Initially Rejected Because of Negative Referees' Evaluations
Examples of influential and/or highly cited papers that were initially rejected by one or more scientific journals are described, to suggest that, although rejection may subsequently result in an improved manuscript, on other occasions referees may simply have failed to appreciate a paper's importance.
Editors, manuscripts, and equal treatment
The question of equity in the manuscript evaluation process is receiving greater attention—perhaps becuase of the increasing difficulty of publishing and an expanding interest in due process and
The Peer Review Process Used to Evaluate Manuscripts Submitted to Academic Journals: Interjudgmental Reliability
AbstractThe purpose of the present investigation was to assess the agreement between two independent reviews of each of 278 manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Educational Psychology on an
To Accept or Reject: Peer Review.
Peer review is an established and perhaps essential part of the publishing process. In this study, 1214 review comments by 216 reviewers were analyzed to determine the nature of the reviews and to
Barriers to scientific contributions: The author's formula
Recently I completed a review of the empirical research on scientific journals (Armstrong 1982). This review provided evidence for an "author's formula," a set of rules that authors can use to