Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T08:52:38.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reviewing is its own reward … but should it be? Incentivizing peer review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2020

Lauren Collier-Spruel
Lauren Collier-Spruel*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
*
*Corresponding author. Email: collierspruel@gmail.com
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. 37 - 40
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

Annesley, T. M. (2012). Seven reasons not to be a peer reviewer—and why these reasons are wrong. Clinical Chemistry, 58(4), 677–679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grand, J. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, T. D., Landis, R. S., Reynolds, D. H., Scott, J. C., … Truxillo, D. M. (2018). A systems-based approach to fostering robust science in industrial-organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11(1), 4–42. doi: 10.1017/iop.2017.55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, D. (2015). Peer review incentives: A simple idea to encourage fast and effective peer review. European Science Editing, 41(3), 70–71.Google Scholar
Köhler, T., González-Morales, M. G., Banks, G. C., O’Boyle, E., Allen, J. A., Sinha, R., … Gulick, L. M. V. (2020 ). Supporting robust, rigorous, and reliable reviewing as the cornerstone of our profession: Introducing a competency framework for peer review. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 13(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2007). What to do? The effects of discrepancies, incentives, and time on dynamic goal prioritization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 928–941. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vancouver, J. B., Weinhardt, J. M., & Schmidt, A. M. (2010). A formal, computational theory of multiple-goal pursuit: Integrating goal-choice and goal-striving processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 985–1008. doi: 10.1037/a0020628CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed