Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:48:51.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: “It's like déjà vu all over again!”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2010

Domenic V. Cicchetti
Domenic V. Cicchetti
Affiliation:
West Haven Veterans Administration Medical Center and Department of Psychiatry, Yale University, West Haven, CT 06516
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Author's Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 401 - 403
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bailar, J. C. (1991) Reliability, fairness, objectivity and other inappropriate goals in peer review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:137–38. [rDVC, RDL]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakanic, V., McPhail, C. & Simon, R. J. (1987) The manuscript review and decision-making process. American Sociological Review 52:631–42. [CC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyer, J. M. (1978) Editorial policies and practises among leading journals in four scientific fields. Sociological Quarterly 19:66–88. [CC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. (1991a) The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:119–86. [rDVC, CC, HDL, JDS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. (1991r) Peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: Reflections from the peer review mirror. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:167–86. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. & Conn, H. O. (1976) A statistical analysis of reviewer agreement and bias in evaluating medical abstracts. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 49:373–83. [rDVC]Google Scholar
Cole, S., Cole, J. R. & Simon, G. A. (1981) Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 214:881–86. [CC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cole, S., Rubin, L. & Cole, J. R. (1977) Peer review and the support of science. Scientific American 237:34–41. [CC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eckberg, D. L. (1991) When nonreliability of reviews indicates solid science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:145–46. [RDL]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, J. M. (1991) Journal availability and the quality of published research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:146–47. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargens, L. L. (1988) Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review 53:139–51. [CC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargens, L. L. (1991) Referee agreement in context. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:150–51. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargens, L. L. & Herting, J. R. (1990) Neglected considerations in the analysis of agreement among journal referees. Scientometrics 19:91–106. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiesler, C. A. (1991) Confusion between reviewer reliability and wise editorial and funding decisions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:151–52. [rDVC, RDL]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraemer, H. C. (1991) Do we really want more “reliable” reviewers? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:152–54. [RDL]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laming, D. (1991) Why is the reliability of peer review so low? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:154–56. [RDL]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarus, D. (1982) Interreferee agreement and acceptance rates in physics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5(2):19. [CC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McReynolds, P. (1971) Reliability of ratings of research papers. American Psychologist 26:400–401. [rDVC, CC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, A. (1990) Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press, ed.RDL]Google Scholar
Oxman, A. D., Guyatt, C. H., Singer, J., Goldsmith, C. H., Hutchison, B. G., Milner, R. A. & Streiner, D. L. (1991) Agreement among reviewers of review articles, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 44:91–98. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roediger, H. L. III, (1991) Is unreliability in peer review harmful? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:159–60. [RDL]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schdnemann, P. H. (1991) In praise of randomness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:162–63. [RDL, JDS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stricker, L. J. (1991) Disagreement among journal reviewers: No cause for undue alarm. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:163–64. [RDL]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, H. & Merton, R. K. (1973) Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalization, structure and function of the referee system. In: The sociology of science. University of Chicago Press. [CC]Google Scholar