Quality and Peer Review of Research: An Adjudicating Role for Editors

REFERENCES

• Armstrong , J. S. 1980 . Unintelligible management research and academic prestige . Interfaces , 10 : 80 – 86 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong , J. S. 1982 . Research on scientific journals: Implications for editors and authors . Journal of Forecasting , 1 : 83 – 104 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong , J. S. 1997 . Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation . Science and Engineering Ethics , 3 : 63 – 84 .
   Google Scholar
• Austin , K. M. , Moline , M. E. and Williams , G. T. 1990 . Confronting Malpractice , Newbury Park : Sage .
   Google Scholar
• British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). (2010). Reported on the Today Programme, Radio 4, February 2, 2010. Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/listen_again/ (Accessed: 12 April 2010 ).
   Google Scholar
• Bacchetti , P. 2002 . Peer review of statistics in medical research: The other problem . British Medical Journal , 324 : 1271 – 1273 .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakanic , V. , McPhail , C. and Simon , R. J. 1987 . The manuscript review and decision-making process . American Sociological Review , 52 : 631 – 642 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker , D. 2002 . The peer review process in science education . Research in Science Education , 32 : 171 – 180 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley , J. V. 1982 . Editorial overkill . Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society , 19 : 271 – 274 .
   Google Scholar
• Brehms , S. S. and Brehms , J. W. 1966 . Pyschological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control , New York : Academic Press .
   Google Scholar
• Brower , S. 2008 . Why peer review? . Communications in Information Literacy , 2 : 62 – 63 .
   Google Scholar
• Burnham , J. C. 1990 . The evolution of editorial peer review . The Journal of the American Medical Association , 263 : 1323 – 1329 .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campanario , J. M. 1998a . Peer review for journals as it stands today—Part 1 . Science Communication , 19 : 181 – 211 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campanario , J. M. 1998b . Peer review for journals as it stands today—Part 2 . Science Communication , 19 : 277 – 306 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eysenck , H. J. and Eysenck , S. B. G. 1992 . Peer review: advice to referees and contributors . Personality and Individual Differences , 13 : 393 – 399 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finke , R. A. 1990 . Recommendations for contemporary editorial practices . American Psychologist , 45 : 669 – 670 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foucault , M. 1970 . The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences , London : Tavistock .
   Google Scholar
• Foucault , M. 1980 . Power and Knowledge , Brighton : Harvester Press .
   Google Scholar
• Foucault , M. 1988 . “ The ethics of care for the self as a practice of freedom ” . In The final Foucault , Edited by: Bernauer , J. and Rassmussen , D. 1 – 20 . Boston : MIT Press .
   Google Scholar
• Garfunkel , J. M. , Ulshen , M. H. , Hamrick , H. J. and Lawson , E. E. 1990 . Problems identified by secondary review of accepted manuscripts . Journal of the American Medical Association , 263 : 1369 – 1371 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giddens , A. 2001 . Sociology , Cambridge : Polity Press .
   Google Scholar
• Hadjistavropoulos , T. and Bieling , P. J. 2000 . When reviews attack: Ethics, free speech, and the peer review process . Canadian Psychology , 41 : 152 – 159 .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hames , I. 2007 . Peer Review and Manuscript Management of Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice , Malden : Blackwell .
   Google Scholar
• Haralambros , M. and Holborn , M. 2000 . Sociology , London : Collins .
   Google Scholar
• Hauser , M. and Fehr , E. 2007 . An incentive solution to the peer review problem . PLoS, Biology , 5 : e107
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Holbrook , A. , Bourke , S. , Lovat , T. and Fairbairn , H. 2008 . Consistency and inconsistency in Ph.D. thesis examination . Australian Journal of Education , 52 : 36 – 48 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopps , J. G. 1990 . Reflections on ‘confirmational response bias among social work journals’ . Science, Technology and Human Values , 15 : 39 – 45 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ioannidis , J. P. A. 2005 . Why most published research findings are false . PLoS Medicine , 2 : e334
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jain , A. K. 2009 . Peer review: Heart and soul of scientific publication . Indian Journal of Orthopaedics , 43 : 3 – 5 .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jayasinghe , U. W. , Marsh , H. W. and Bond , N. 2001 . Peer review in the funding of research in Higher Education: The Australian experience . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 23 : 343 – 364 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jayasinghe , U. W. , Marsh , H. W. and Bond , N. 2006 . A new reader trial approach to peer review in funding research grants: an Australian experiment . Scientometrics , 69 : 591 – 606 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalles , D. 2005 . Improving professional conduct in publishing . Computer , 38 : 114 – 116 .
   Google Scholar
• Kitchener , K. 1984 . Intuition, critical evaluation and ethical principles: The foundation for ethical decisions in counselling psychology . Counselling Psychology , 12 : 43 – 57 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liesegang , T. J. 2009 . Revealing the faults in medical journals . Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae , 57 : 75 – 83 .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipton , P. 2004 . Inference to the Best Explanation , London : Routledge .
   Google Scholar
• Lindzey , G. and Byrne , D. 1968 . “ Measurement of social choice and interpersonal alternatives ” . In Handbook of Social Psychology , Edited by: Lindzey , G. and Aronson , E. 452 – 525 . Reading , Mass : Addison-Wesley .
   Google Scholar
• Mabbot , J. D. 1966 . An Introduction to Ethics , London : Hutchinson .
   Google Scholar
• Macfarlane , B. 2006 . The Academic Citizen , London : Routledge .
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney , M. J. 1977 . Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system . Cognitive Therapy and Research , 1 : 161 – 175 .
   Google Scholar
• Marsh , H. W. , Jayasinghe , U. W. and Bond , N. 2008 . Improving the peer review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability . American Psychologist , 63 : 160 – 168 .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McIntyre , A. 1985 . After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory , London : Duckworth .
   Google Scholar
• Moonesinghe , R. , Khoury , M. J. and Janssens , C. J. W. 2007 . Most published research findings are wrong—but a little replication goes a long way . PLoS Medicine , 4 : e28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natfulin , D. H. , Ware , J. E. and Donnelly , F. A. 1973 . The Doctor Fox lecture: A paradigm of educational seduction . Journal of Medical Education , 48 : 630 – 635 .
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Neff , B. D. and Olden , J. D. 2006 . Is peer review a game of chance . BioScience , 56 : 333 – 340 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patterson, M. (2007). Bringing peer review out of the shadows. Public Library of Science. http://www.plos.org (Accessed: 12 April 2010 ).
   Google Scholar
• Peters , D. P. and Ceci , S. J. 1982 . Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again . Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 5 : 187 – 255 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Persaud , R. 1995 . Peering into review . Psychiatric Bulletin , 19 : 529 – 531 .
   Google Scholar
• Rivera , H. 2009 . Editors’ malpractice: Forward submitted letters (to the concerned authors), then reject them . Accountability in Research , 16 : 331 – 333 .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robergs , R. A. 2003 . A critical review of peer review: The need to scrutinize the ‘gatekeepers’ of research in exercise physiology . Journal of Exercise Physiologyonline , 6 : i – xiii .
   Google Scholar
• Rojewski , J. W. and Domenico , D. M. 2004 . The art and politics of peer review . Journal of Career and Technical Education , 20 : 1 – 13 .
   Google Scholar
• Shamoo , A. E. 1994 . Editors, peer reviews, and ethics . Perpsectives , 14 : 4 – 5 .
   Google Scholar
• Shatz , D. 2004 . Peer Review: A Critical Enquiry , Lanham : Rowman and Littlefield .
   Google Scholar
• Smith , R. 1999 . Editorial: A beginning that should lead to complete transparency . British Medical Journal , 318 : 4 – 5 .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snodgrass , R. 2006 . Single versus double blind reviewing: An analysis of the literature . ACM Sigmod Record , 35 : 8 – 21 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sokal , A. 1996 . Transgressing the boundaries: Towards a transformational hermeneutics of quantum gravity . Social Text , 46–47 : 217 – 252 .
   Google Scholar
• Tannen , D. 1998 . The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue , New York : Random House .
   Google Scholar
• Thorndike , E. L. 1920 . A constant error in psychological rating . Journal of Applied Psychology , 4 : 25 – 29 .
   Google Scholar
• Tight , M. 2009 . The Development of Higher Education in the United Kingdom since 1945 , Maidenhead : Society for Research in Higher Education/Open University .
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin , S. 1972 . Human Understanding , Princeton : Princeton University Press .
   Google Scholar
• Weller , A. C. 2001 . Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses , Medford : American Society for Information Science and Technology .
   Google Scholar