Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:15:05.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Split roles in peer reviewing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2020

Paul E. Spector Open the ORCID record for Paul E. Spector [Opens in a new window]
Paul E. Spector*
Affiliation:
University of South Florida
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
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
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 68 - 71
Copyright
© Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. 2020

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

Bedeian, A. G. (1996). Improving the journal review process: The question of ghostwriting. American Psychologist, 51, 1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedeian, A. G. (2003). The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4), 331–338. doi: 10.1177/1056492603258974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhler, T., González-Morales, M. G., Banks, G. C., O’Boyle, E. H., Allen, J. A., Sinha, R., … Gulick, L. M. V. (2020). Supporting robust, rigorous, and reliable reviewing as the cornerstone of our porfession: Introducing a competency framework for peer review. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 13(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, H. H., Kay, E., & French, J. R. P. Jr. (1965). Split roles in performance appraisal. Harvard Business Review, 43(1), 123.Google Scholar