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

  title={Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation},
  author={J. Armstrong},
  journal={Science and Engineering Ethics},
  • J. Armstrong
  • Published 1997
  • Medicine, Psychology
  • 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… CONTINUE READING
    172 Citations
    Evaluating traditional peer-review processes and their alternatives: An opinionated discussion
    • A. Weiskittel
    • Medicine, Computer Science
    • Math. Comput. For. Nat. Resour. Sci.
    • 2015
    • 1
    • PDF
    Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors
    • 48
    What Determines Time Spent in Peer Reviews? – Evidence from The Accounting Review
    • 1
    Bias in peer review: a case study.
    • 7
    • PDF
    Discovery and communication of important marketing findings: Evidence and proposals
    • 78
    • PDF
    Peer review and innovation
    • R. Spier
    • Sociology, Medicine
    • Science and engineering ethics
    • 2002
    • 35
    Quality and Peer Review of Research: An Adjudicating Role for Editors
    • D. Newton
    • Psychology, Medicine
    • Accountability in research
    • 2010
    • 39
    • PDF
    Emerging trends in peer review—a survey
    • 86
    • PDF