References
- Cho, M. K., & Bero, L. A. (1994). Instruments for assessing the quality of drug studies published in the medical literature. JAMA, 272, 101–104.
- Epstein, W. M. (1990). Confirmational response bias among social work journals. Science Technology and Human Values, 15, 9–38.
- Epstein, W. M. (2004). Confirmational response bias and the quality of the editorial process among American social work journals. Research on Social Work Practice, 14, 450–458.
- Glenn, D. (2004). Schalor sends sham papers to social work journals to show weakness of peer review. Chronicle of Higher Education, October 21, 2004.
- Kirk, S.A., & Franke, T.M. (1997). Agreeing to disagree: A study of the reliability of manuscript reviews. Social Work Research, 21, 121-126.
- Lindsey, D., & Kirk, S. A. (1992). The role of social work journals in the development of a knowledge base for the profession. Social Service Review, 66, 295–310.
- Pardeck, J. T. (1992). Are social work editorial boards competent? Some disquieting data with implications for research on social work practice. Research on Social Work Practice, 2, 487–496.
- Rowland, F. (2004) The peer review process. Retrieved November 26, 2004 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/rowland.pdf
- Sweitzer, B.J., & Cullen, D.J. (1994). How well does a journal's peer review process function? Journal of American Medical Association, 272, 152–153.
- Thyer, B. A., & Myers, L. L. (2003). An empirical evaluation of the editorial practices of social work journals. Journal of Social Work Education, 39, 125–142.
- Williamson, A. (2003). What will happen to peer review? Learned Publishing, 16, 15–20.