Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T07:53:28.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A challenge to Peters and Ceci's conclusions with an examination of editorial files for reviewer appropriateness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2010

Robert Boice ,
Gayle Pecker ,
Ellen Zaback  and
David H. Barlow
Robert Boice
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, N.Y. 12222
Gayle Pecker
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, N.Y. 12222
Ellen Zaback
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, N.Y. 12222
David H. Barlow
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, N.Y. 12222
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
Continuing Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 1985 , pp. 744 - 745
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

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 Scholar
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
Machol, R. (1981) Letter to the editor. Sciences 21. [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