Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again

1982 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas P. Peters ◽  
Stephen J. Ceci
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Human Potential ◽  
Natural Setting ◽  
American Psychology ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Actual Evaluation ◽  
To Receive

AbstractA growing interest in and concern about the adequacy and fairness of modern peer-review practices in publication and funding are apparent across a wide range of scientific disciplines. Although questions about reliability, accountability, reviewer bias, and competence have been raised, there has been very little direct research on these variables.The present investigation was an attempt to study the peer-review process directly, in the natural setting of actual journal referee evaluations of submitted manuscripts. As test materials we selected 12 already published research articles by investigators from prestigious and highly productive American psychology departments, one article from each of 12 highly regarded and widely read American psychology journals with high rejection rates (80%) and nonblind refereeing practices.With fictitious names and institutions substituted for the original ones (e.g., Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential), the altered manuscripts were formally resubmitted to the journals that had originally refereed and published them 18 to 32 months earlier. Of the sample of 38 editors and reviewers, only three (8%) detected the resubmissions. This result allowed nine of the 12 articles to continue through the review process to receive an actual evaluation: eight of the nine were rejected. Sixteen of the 18 referees (89%) recommended against publication and the editors concurred. The grounds for rejection were in many cases described as “serious methodological flaws.” A number of possible interpretations of these data are reviewed and evaluated.

scholarly journals PREFACE: TECHNICAL COMMISSION IV ON SPATIAL INFORMATION SCIENCE

2020 ◽  
Vol XLIII-B4-2020 ◽  
pp. 7-9
Author(s):  
S. Zlatanova ◽  
S. Dragicevic ◽  
G. Sithole
Keyword(s):  
Data Fusion ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Spatial Information ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Human Society ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Spatial Information Science ◽  
Advance Research

Abstract. The unusual circumstances created by the coronavirus pandemic has impacted recent activities of Commission IV. The situation also provides an excellent opportunity to connect the work of the Commission to addressing an important global problem. Managing the social and economic challenges brought by increased complexity and interconnectivity of activities in human society requires new dimensions of analysing information and specifically spatial information. The increased pressure on the usage of geographic space, maintaining sustainable development and creating liveable community environments increases the requirements for spatial decision-making tools. Commission IV Spatial Information Science (2016–2020) is dedicated to advance research activities in spatial information sciences for modelling, structuring, management, analysis, visualization and simulation of (big) data with focus on the third spatial dimension and taking into consideration dynamic changes. Special attention is given to linking information about real-world physical phenomena with societal, organizational and legal information in order to address the complexity of issues in their entirety. The Commission has contributed to advancements in data modelling, data fusion and management, visualization (web-based, VR and AR), simulation and city analytics, and 3D applications. The work had largely been implemented in cooperation with international organizations such as FIG, UDMS, 3DGeoinfo, ICA, OGC, ISO and Web3D.The Commission consists of 10 scientific areas of research that is coordinated by 10 working groups (WG) as follows - WG1: Strengthen the work on multidimensional spatial model and representations towards seamless data fusion; WG2: Advance the semantic modelling, development and linking of ontologies; WG3: Intensify research into data interpretation, quality and uncertainty modelling; WG4: Strengthen research on crowdsourced data and public participation, towards community-driven and participatory applications, collaborative mapping and use/usability of maps; WG5: Strengthen research on seamless indoor/outdoor location-based services, navigation and tracking, and analysis of human movement; WG6: Advance interoperable Internet of Things, Sensor web, SDI and linked data; WG7: Advance research on spatial data types, indexing methods and analysis to further contribute to development of spatial DBMS for management and analysis of multi-dimensional data; WG8: Encourage the use of functional programming and streaming algorithms in development of demos and applications as well as parallel and distributed processing paradigms; WG9: Advance visual analytics, online multi-dimensional visualization on mobile and desktop devices, considering human-centred applications, privacy and security issues; WG10: Advance knowledge on the use of spatial information (BIM/GIS) for urban modelling; ICWG IV/III: Global Mapping: Updating, Verification and Interoperability with the mission to promote the development of advanced methodologies and applications for the update, verification and interoperability of geospatial databases.The papers received for the ISPRS congress reflect the above-mentioned scientific research areas. The reported research ranges from advancements in new and emerging theories, through experiments and analysis to demonstration of technologies in different applications. The research was captured through papers and abstracts published in the collection of ISPRS Annals and ISPRS Archives. The papers and abstracts were selected for inclusion through a rigorous peer-review process. The ISPRS Annals contain 29 papers and the ISPRS Archives contain 114 papers. The diversity of the research topics presented in the published papers clearly indicate the wide range of topics within the field of Spatial Information Science. A rigorous peer-review process by the ISPRS TC IV Scientific Committee Working Group Chairs ensured hight quality and scientific innovation.

scholarly journals Editors’ perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e020568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ketevan Glonti ◽  
Darko Hren
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Output ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Manuscript Review ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Communication Practices

IntroductionDespite dealing with scientific output and potentially having an impact on the quality of research published, the manuscript peer-review process itself has at times been criticised for being ‘unscientific’. Research indicates that there are social and subjective dimensions of the peer-review process that contribute to this perception, including how key stakeholders—namely authors, editors and peer reviewers—communicate. In particular, it has been suggested that the expected roles and tasks of stakeholders need to be more clearly defined and communicated if the manuscript review process is to be improved. Disentangling current communication practices, and outlining the specific roles and tasks of the main actors, might be a first step towards establishing the design of interventions that counterbalance social influences on the peer-review process.The purpose of this article is to present a methodological design for a qualitative study exploring the communication practices within the manuscript review process of biomedical journals from the journal editors’ point of view.Methods and analysisSemi-structured interviews will be carried out with editors of biomedical journals between October 2017 and February 2018. A heterogeneous sample of participants representing a wide range of biomedical journals will be sought through purposive maximum variation sampling, drawing from a professional network of contacts, publishers, conference participants and snowballing.Interviews will be thematically analysed following the method outlined by Braun and Clarke. The qualitative data analysis software NVivo V.11 will be used to aid data management and analysis.Ethics and disseminationThis research project was evaluated and approved by the University of Split, Medical School Ethics Committee (2181-198-03-04-17-0029) in May 2017. Findings will be disseminated through a publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations during conferences.

scholarly journals Preface: Technical Commission IV on Spatial Information Science

2020 ◽  
Vol V-4-2020 ◽  
pp. 7-9
Author(s):  
S. Zlatanova ◽  
S. Dragicevic ◽  
G. Sithole
Keyword(s):  
Data Fusion ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Spatial Information ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Human Society ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Spatial Information Science ◽  
Advance Research

Abstract. The unusual circumstances created by the coronavirus pandemic has impacted recent activities of Commission IV. The situation also provides an excellent opportunity to connect the work of the Commission to addressing an important global problem. Managing the social and economic challenges brought by increased complexity and interconnectivity of activities in human society requires new dimensions of analysing information and specifically spatial information. The increased pressure on the usage of geographic space, maintaining sustainable development and creating liveable community environments increases the requirements for spatial decision-making tools. Commission IV Spatial Information Science (2016–2020) is dedicated to advance research activities in spatial information sciences for modelling, structuring, management, analysis, visualization and simulation of (big) data with focus on the third spatial dimension and taking into consideration dynamic changes. Special attention is given to linking information about real-world physical phenomena with societal, organizational and legal information in order to address the complexity of issues in their entirety. The Commission has contributed to advancements in data modelling, data fusion and management, visualization (web-based, VR and AR), simulation and city analytics, and 3D applications. The work had largely been implemented in cooperation with international organizations such as FIG, UDMS, 3DGeoinfo, ICA, OGC, ISO and Web3D.The Commission consists of 10 scientific areas of research that is coordinated by 10 working groups (WG) as follows - WG1: Strengthen the work on multidimensional spatial model and representations towards seamless data fusion; WG2: Advance the semantic modelling, development and linking of ontologies; WG3: Intensify research into data interpretation, quality and uncertainty modelling; WG4: Strengthen research on crowdsourced data and public participation, towards community-driven and participatory applications, collaborative mapping and use/usability of maps; WG5: Strengthen research on seamless indoor/outdoor location-based services, navigation and tracking, and analysis of human movement; WG6: Advance interoperable Internet of Things, Sensor web, SDI and linked data; WG7: Advance research on spatial data types, indexing methods and analysis to further contribute to development of spatial DBMS for management and analysis of multi-dimensional data; WG8: Encourage the use of functional programming and streaming algorithms in development of demos and applications as well as parallel and distributed processing paradigms; WG9: Advance visual analytics, online multi-dimensional visualization on mobile and desktop devices, considering human-centred applications, privacy and security issues; WG10: Advance knowledge on the use of spatial information (BIM/GIS) for urban modelling; ICWG IV/III: Global Mapping: Updating, Verification and Interoperability with the mission to promote the development of advanced methodologies and applications for the update, verification and interoperability of geospatial databases.The papers received for the ISPRS congress reflect the above-mentioned scientific research areas. The reported research ranges from advancements in new and emerging theories, through experiments and analysis to demonstration of technologies in different applications. The research was captured through papers and abstracts published in the collection of ISPRS Annals and ISPRS Archives. The papers and abstracts were selected for inclusion through a rigorous peer-review process. The ISPRS Annals contain 29 papers and the ISPRS Archives contain 114 papers. The diversity of the research topics presented in the published papers clearly indicate the wide range of topics within the field of Spatial Information Science. A rigorous peer-review process by the ISPRS TC IV Scientific Committee Working Group Chairs ensured hight quality and scientific innovation.

scholarly journals A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy

2000 ◽  
Vol 93 (4) ◽  
pp. 164-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
K I Resch ◽  
E Ernst ◽  
J Garrow
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Short Report ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
To Receive

Summary A study was designed to test the hypothesis that experts who review papers for publication are prejudiced against an unconventional form of therapy. Two versions were produced (A and B) of a ‘short report’ that related to treatments of obesity, identical except for the nature of the intervention. Version A related to an orthodox treatment, version B to an unconventional treatment. 398 reviewers were randomized to receive one or the other version for peer review. The primary outcomes were the reviewers’ rating of ‘importance’ on a scale of 1-5 and their verdict regarding rejection or acceptance of the paper. Reviewers were unaware that they were taking part in a study. The overall response rate was 41.7%, and 141 assessment forms were suitable for statistical evaluation. After dichotomization of the rating scale, a significant difference in favour of the orthodox version with an odds ratio of 3.01 (95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 8.25), was found. This observation mirrored that of the visual analogue scale for which the respective medians and interquartile ranges were 67% (51% to 78.5%) for version A and 57% (29.7% to 72.6%) for version B. Reviewers showed a wide range of responses to both versions of the paper, with a significant bias in favour of the orthodox version. Authors of technically good unconventional papers may therefore be at a disadvantage in the peer review process. Yet the effect is probably too small to preclude publication of their work in peer-reviewed orthodox journals.

Getting Involved in the Peer Review Process

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenya Malcolm ◽  
Allison Groenendyk ◽  
Mary Cwik ◽  
Alisa Beyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process

Reference Conundrum: The Broad Definition of Peer-Review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cody Fullerton
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Inaccurate Information ◽  
The Core ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Reference Interactions ◽  
Definition Of

For years, the gold-standard in academic publishing has been the peer-review process, and for the most part, peer-review remains a safeguard to authors publishing intentionally biased, misleading, and inaccurate information. Its purpose is to hold researchers accountable to the publishing standards of that field, including proper methodology, accurate literature reviews, etc. This presentation will establish the core tenants of peer-review, discuss if certain types of publications should be able to qualify as such, offer possible solutions, and discuss how this affects a librarian's reference interactions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document