Article thumbnail

Does the Need for Agreement Among Reviewers Inhibit the Publication of Controversial Findings?

By J. Scott Armstrong and Raymond Hubbard

Abstract

As Cicchetti indicates, agreement among reviewers is not high. This conclusion is empirically supported by Fiske and Fogg (1990), who reported that two independent reviews of the same papers typically had no critical point in common. Does this imply that journal editors should strive for a high level of reviewer consensus as a criterion for publication? Prior research suggests that such a requirement would inhibit the publication of papers with controversial findings. We summarize this research and report on a survey of editors

Topics: Behavioral Neuroscience
Year: 1991
OAI identifier: oai:cogprints.org:5182

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1982). Barriers to scientific contributions: The author’s formula,”
  2. (1990). But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper! Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments,” doi
  3. (1990). found no differences in the quality of reviews based on whether or not they were signed by the reviewer. Also, those who signed the reviews were more likely to recommend acceptance.
  4. (1982). Is review by peers as fair as it appears?” doi
  5. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system,” doi
  6. (1982). Research on scientific journals: Implications for editors and authors,” doi
  7. (1990). The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review,”
  8. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation,” doi