PEER-REVIEW PRACTICES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL JOURNALS - THE FATE OF ACCEPTED, PUBLISHED ARTICLES, SUBMITTED AGAIN
PEER-REVIEW PRACTICES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL JOURNALS - THE FATE OF ACCEPTED, PUBLISHED ARTICLES, SUBMITTED AGAIN
复制标题
DOI：
10.1017/s0140525x00011183
复制
发表时间：
1982-01-01
影响因子：
29.3
通讯作者：
CECI, SJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
PETERS, DP;CECI, SJ
越来越多的兴趣和关注的充分性和公平性的现代同行评审的做法在出版和资金是显而易见的，在广泛的科学学科。虽然关于可靠性，问责制，评审员偏见和能力的问题已经提出，很少有对这些变量的直接研究。目前的调查是一种尝试，直接研究同行评议过程中，在自然设置的实际期刊审稿人评价提交的手稿。作为测试材料，我们选择了12篇已经发表的研究论文，这些研究论文来自美国著名的、高效率的心理学系，其中一篇来自12种被高度评价和广泛阅读的美国心理学期刊，这些期刊的拒绝率高（80%），并且采用了非盲评审的做法。用虚构的名字和机构代替原来的名字和机构（例如，三谷人类潜能中心），修改后的手稿被正式重新提交给最初评审并在18到32个月前发表的期刊。在38名编辑和审稿人的样本中，只有3人（8%）发现了重新提交。这一结果使12篇文章中的9篇能够继续通过审查程序接受实际评价：9篇文章中的8篇被拒绝。18位审稿人中有16位（89%）建议反对出版，编辑同意。在许多情况下，拒绝的理由被描述为”严重的方法缺陷。“我们对这些数据的许多可能的解释进行了审查和评估。
A 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 (eg, 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.