Article contents
Some reactions to manuscript review from a questionnaire study
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 February 2010
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.'](https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0140525X00046033/resource/name/firstPage-S0140525X00046033a.jpg)
- Type
- Continuing Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985
References
AAUP Reports (1979) Academic freedom and tenure: University of Maryland. Academe 65:223. [RLB]Google Scholar
American Psychological Association (1973) Eight APA journals initiate controversial blind reviewing. APA Monitor 3:5. [DPP]Google Scholar
Beaver, D. deB. (1982) On the failure to detect previously published research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:199–200. [RB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, R. L. (1980) Academic freedom and peer reviews of research proposals and papers. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62:639–46. [RLB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyer, J. M. (1982) Explaining an unsurprising demonstration: High rejection rates and scarcity of space. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:202–3. [RB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boice, R. (1983) Observational skills. Psychological Bulletin 93:3–29. [RB]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boice, R. & Jones, F. (1984) Why academicians don't write. Journal of Higher Education 55:1–16. [RB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brackbill, Y. & Korten, F. (1970) Journal reviewing practices: Authors' and APA members' suggestions for revision. American Psychologist 25:937–40. [RB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, J. V. (1981) Overconfidence in ignorant experts. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 17:82–84. [DPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceci, S. J. & Peters, D. P. (1984) How “blind” is blind review? American Psychologist 39:1491–94. [DPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chubin, D. E. (1982) Reforming peer review: From recycling to reflexivity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:204. [RB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. (1980) Reliability of reviews for the American Psychologist: A biostatistical assessment of the data. American Psychologist 35:300–303. [DPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, W. M. & Catt, V. (1977) Productivity ratings of graduate programs in psychology based on publication in the journals of the American Psychological Association. American Psychologist 32:793–813. [DPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, D. (1967) The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals. American Sociologist 32:195–201. [DPP]Google Scholar
Endler, N. S., Rushton, J. P. & Roediger, H. L. (1978) Productivity and scholarly impact (citations) of British, Canadian, and U.S. departments of psychology. American Psychologist 33:1064–82. [DPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, M. (1978) Discrimination or favoritism? Sex bias in book reviews. American Psychologist 33:936–38. [RB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Over, R. (1982) What is the source of bias in peer review? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:229–30. [RB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, D. P. & Ceci, S. J. (1982) Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:187–255. [RB, RLB, CNC, DPP, RJS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roose, K. D. & Anderson, C. J. (1970) A rating of graduate programs. American Council on Education. [DPP]Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by