Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:21:15.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peer review: Agreement and disagreement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2011

Domenic V. Cicchetti
Domenic V. Cicchetti
Affiliation:
Child Study Center, Yale University School of Medicine, 230 Frontage Road, New Haven, CT 06510
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rl In response to Somit & Peterson's call for multiple journal manuscript submissions, and consistent with Cicchetti (1991a and 1991b), counterarguments are presented. The policy for multiple submissions is difficult to defend scientifically ana would place an unwarranted burden on both reviewers and journal editors. As such the policy is again rejected. R2 As earlier hypothesized, referee agreement on manuscripts submitted to a major journal in chemistry was significantly higher for acceptance than for rejection. This is consistent with the high acceptance rate (>70%) of this journal. There is significantly more referee agreement on rejection than on acceptance for manuscripts submitted to major journals, in behavioral science and medicine. These journals have high rejection rates (often >70%).

Type
Authors' Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 19 , Special Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 534 - 536
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

Cicchetti, D. V. (1991a) The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:119–35. [DVC, AS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. (1991b) Reflections from the peer review mirror. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:167–86. [DVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. (1993) The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: “It's like déjà vu all over again.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16:401–03. [DVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. & Sparrow, S. S. (1981) Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: Applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 86:127–37. [DVC]Google ScholarPubMed
Crandall, R. (1991) What should be done to improve reviewing? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:143. [DVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, H. D. (1993) An evaluation of the peer review process at Angewandte Chemie. Angewandte Chemistry, International Edition, English 32:234. [DVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargens, L. L. (1988) Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review 53:139–51. [DVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargens, L. L. (1991) Referee agreement in context. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:150–1. [DVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, H. M. (1976) Letter to the editor. American Sociologist 11:178–79. [DVC]Google Scholar
Lindsey, D. (1978) The scientific publication system in social science. Jossey-Bass. [DVC]Google Scholar
Lock, S. (1985) A difficult balance: Editorial peer review in medicine. ISI Press. [DVC]Google Scholar
Lock., S. P. (1991) Should the blinded lead the blinded? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:156–7. [DVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, M. J. (1991) Justice, efficiency and epistemology in the peer review of scientific manuscripts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:157. [DVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, D. P. and Ceci., S. J. (1982) Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:187–255. [AS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. D. Jr. (1993) Report of the managing editor of the American Political Science Review, 1992–1993, PS 26:841–846. [AS]Google Scholar