Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:23:10.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2011

Domenic V. Cicchetti
Domenic V. Cicchetti
Affiliation:
VA Medical Center, West Haven, CT 06516, Electronic mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The reliability of peer review of scientific documents and the evaluative criteria scientists use to judge the work of their peers are critically reexamined with special attention to the consistently low levels of reliability that have been reported. Referees of grant proposals agree much more about what is unworthy of support than about what does have scientific value. In the case of manuscript submissions this seems to depend on whether a discipline (or subfield) is general and diffuse (e.g., cross-disciplinary physics, general fields of medicine, cultural anthropology, social psychology) or specific and focused (e.g., nuclear physics, medical specialty areas, physical anthropology, and behavioral neuroscience). In the former there is also much more agreement on rejection than acceptance, but in the latter both the wide differential in manuscript rejection rates and the high correlation between referee recommendations and editorial decisions suggests that reviewers and editors agree more on acceptance than on rejection. Several suggestions are made for improving the reliability and quality of peer review. Further research is needed, especially in the physical sciences.

Keywords

cross-disciplinary comparisonsevaluationgrant reviewmanuscript reviewspeer reviewquality controlreliability
Type
Target Article
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 119 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Abelson, P. H. (1980) Scientific communication. Science 209:60–62. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abramowitz, S. I.Gomes, B. & Abrarnowitz, C. V. (1975) Publish or politic: Referee bias in manuscript review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 5:187–200. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abt, H. A. (1988) What happens to rejected astronomical papers? Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 100:506–08. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature (1987) A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical articles. Annals of Internal Medicine 106:598–604. [SPL]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adair, R. K. (1981) Anonymous refereeing. Physics Today 34:13–15. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adair, R. K. (1982) A physics editor comments on Peters & Ceci's peer-review study. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:196. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adair, R. K. & Trigg, G. L. (1979) Editorial: Should the character of Physical Review Letters be changed? Physical Review Letters 43:1969–74. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, E. M. (1960) Why are research grant applications disapproved? Science 132:1532–34. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amabile, T. M. (1983) Brilliant but cruel: Perceptions of negative evaluators. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 19:146–56. [RC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Psychological Association (1983) Publication manual, 3rd ed. [aDVC]Google Scholar
American Psychological Association (1985) Standards for educational and psychological testing. [RFB]Google Scholar
American Psychologist (1989) Members of underrepresented groups: Reviewers for journal manuscripts wanted. American Psychologist 44:1555. [RC]Google Scholar
Anonymous (1987) The publication game: Beyond quality in the search for a lengthy vitae. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 2:3–12 [RC]Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (1980) Unintelligible management research and academic prestige. Interfaces 10:80–86. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (1982a) Barriers to scientific contributions: The author's formula. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:197–99. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (1982b) The ombudsman: Is peer review by peers as fair as it appears? Interfaces 12:62–74. [aDVC, JSA]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, J. S. (1982c) Research on scientific journals: Implications for editors and authors. Journal of Forecasting 1:83–104. [aDVC, JSA]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailar, J. C. III & Patterson, K. (1985) Journal peer review: The need for a research agenda. The New England Journal of Medicine 312:654–57. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baird, J. C.Green, D. M. and Luce, R. D. (1980) Variability and sequential effects in cross-modality matching of area and loudness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 6:277–89. [DL]Google ScholarPubMed
Bakanic, V.McPhail, C. & Simon, R. J. (1987) The manuscript review and decision-making process. American Sociological Report 52:631–42. [aDVC, LJS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartko, J. J. (1966) The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychological Reports 19:3–11. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartko, J. J. (1974) Corrective note to: “The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient as a Measure of Reliability.” Psychological Reports 34:418. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartko, J. J. (1976) On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological Bulletin 83:762–65. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartko, J. J. & Carpenter, W. T. (1976) On the methods and theory of reliability. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 163:307–17. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, A. T. (1976) Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. International Universities Press. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Benwell, R. (1979) Authors anonymous? Physics Bulletin 30:288. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, B. (1960) Graduate education in the United States. McGraw-Hill. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Bernstein, G. S. (1984) Scientific rigor, scientific integrity: A comment on Sommer & Sommer. American Psychologist 39:1316. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyer, J. M. (1978) Editorial policies and practices among leading journals in four scientific fields. The Sociological Quarterly 19:68–88. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blashfield, R. K. (1976) Mixture model tests of cluster analysis: Accuracy of four agglomerative hierarchical methods. Psychological Bulletin 83:377–88. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloch, D. A. & Kraemer, H. C. (1989) 2X2 kappa coefficients: Measures of agreement or association. Biometrics 45:269–87. [HCK]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boehme, G. (1977) Models for the development of science. In: Science, technology, and society: A cross-disciplinary perspective, ed. Spiegel-Rosing, I. & de Solla Price, D.. Sage. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Boehme, G.van der Daele, W. & Krohn, W. (1976) Finalization of science. Social Science Information 15:306–30. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Boor, M. (1986) Suggestions to improve manuscripts submitted to professional journals. American Psychologist. 41:721–22. [RC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornstein, R. F. (1990) Manuscript review in psychology: An alternative model. American Psychologist 45:672–73. [RFB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornstein, R. F. (in press) Publication politics, experimenter bias, and the replication process in social science research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. [RFB].Google Scholar
Bowen, D. D.Perloff, R. & Jacoby, J. (1972) Improving manuscript evaluation procedures. American Psychologist 25:221–25. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozarth, H. D. & Roberts, R. R. Jr. (1972) Signifying significant significance. American Psychologist 27:774–75. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, J. V. (1981) Pernicious publication practices. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 18:31–34. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braida, L. D. & Durlach, N. T. (1972) Intensity perception. II. Resolution in one interval paradigms. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 51:483–502. [DL]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, R. L. & Light, R. J. (1974) Measuring agreement when two observers classify people into categories not defined in advance. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 27:154–63. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broad, W. J. (1988) Science can't keep up with the flood of new journals. The New York Times, Feb. 16:C1, Cll. [JF]Google Scholar
Brook, R. J. & Stirling, W. D. (1984) Agreement between observers when the categories are not specified in advance. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 37:271–82. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, C. (1980) Tutor marked assessments at the Open University: A question of reliability. Assessment in Higher Education 5:104–18. [DL]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. P. (1982) Some remarks from the outgoing editor. Journal of Applied Psychology 67:691–700. [LLH]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carsrud, K. B. (1984) Out of the frying pan: A reply to Sommer & Sommer. American Psychologist 31:1317–18. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceci, S. J. & Peters, D. (1984) How blind is blind review? American Psychologist 39:1491–94. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, I. (1990) Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. Journal of the American Medical Association 263:1405–08. [SPL]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chalmers, T. C.Frank, C. S. & Reitman, D. (1990) Minimizing the three stages of publication bias. Journal of the American Medical Association 263:1392–95. [SPL]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chase, J. M. (1970) Normative criteria for scientific publication. American Sociologist 5:262–65. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Chubin, D. E. (1982) Reform of peer review. Science 215:40. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cicchetti, D. V. (1976) Assessing interrater reliability for rating scales: Resolving some basic issues. British Journal of Psychiatry 129:452–56. [aDVC].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cicchetti, D. V. (1980)Reliability of reviews for the American Psychologist: A biostatistical assessment of the data. American Psychologist 35:300–3. [aDVC, LJS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. (1980)Testing the normal approximation and minimal sample size requirements of weighted kappa when the number of categories is large. Applied Psychological Measurement 5:101–04. [arDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. (1980) On peer review: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:205. [arDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. (1985) A critique of Whitehurst's “Interrater agreement for journal manuscript reviews:” De omnibus, disputandum est. American Psychologist 40:563–68. [aDVC, MED]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. (1988) When diagnostic agreement is high, but reliability is low: Some paradoxes occurring in independent neuropsychological assessments. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 10:605–22. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. & Conn, H. O. (1976) A statistical analysis of reviewer agreement and bias in evaluating medical abstracts. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 45:373–83. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. & Conn, H. O. (1978) Reviewer evaluation of manuscripts submitted to medical journals. Paper presented to the American Statistical Association Meetings, san Diego, CA. (also abstracted in Biometrics [1978] 34:728) [aDVC]Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. & Eron, L. D. (1979) The reliability of manuscript reviewing for the Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association (Social Statistics Section) 22:596–600. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. & Feinstein, A. R. (1990) High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 43:551–68. [arDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cicchetti, D. V. & Fleiss, J. L. (1977) Comparison of the null distributions of weighted kappa and the C ordinal statistic. Applied Psychological Measurement 1:195–201. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. & Heavens, R. (1979) RATCAT (Rater Agreement/Categorical Data). American Statistician 33:91. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. & Showalter, D. (1988) A computer program for determining the reliability of dimensionally scaled data when the numbers and specific sets of examiners may vary at each assessment. Educational and Psychological Measurement 48:717–20. [aDVC]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. [aDVC]Google ScholarPubMed
Cicchetti, D. V. & Tyrer, P. (1988) Reliability and validity of personality assessment. In: Personality disorders: Diagnosis, management and course, ed. Tyrer, P. L.. Butterworth Scientific Ltd. [rDVC]Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V.Aivano, S. L. & Vitale, J. (1976) A computer program for assessing the reliability and systematic bias of individual measurements. Educational and Psychological Measurement 36:761–64. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V.Aivano, S. L. & Vitale, J. (1977) Computer programs for assessing rater agreement and rater bias for qualitative data. Educational and Psychological Measurement 37:195–201. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V.Lee, C.Fontana, A. F. & Dowds, B. N. (1978) A computer program for assessing specific category-rater agreement for qualitative data. Educational and Psychological Measurement 38:805–13. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V.Sharma, Y. & Cotlier, E. (1982) Assessment of observer variability in the classification of human cataracts. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 55:81–88. [rDVC]Google ScholarPubMed
Cicchetti, D. V.Showalter, D. & Tyrer, P. (1985) The effect of number of rating-scale categories upon levels of interrater reliability: A Monte Carlo investigation. Applied Psychological Measurement 9:31–36. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleary, F. R. & Edwards, D. J. (1960) The origins of the contributors to the A.E.R. during the fifties. American Economic Review 50:1011–14. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20:37–46. [aDVC, RR]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1968) Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin 70:213–20. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum. [rDVC, RR]Google Scholar
Cole, J. & Cole, S. (1973) Social stratification in science. University of Chicago Press. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Cole, J. & Cole, S. (1981) Peer review in the National Science Foundation: Phase U of a study. National Academy of Sciences. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Cole, J. & Cole, S. (1985) Experts' “consensus” and decision-making at the National Science Foundation. In: Selectivity in information systems: Survival of the fittest, ed. Warren, K. S.. Praeger. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Cole, S. (1978) Scientific reward systems: A comparative analysis. In: Research in sociology of knowledge, sciences, and art, ed. Jones, R. A.. JAI Press. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Cole, S. (1983) The hierarchy of the sciences. American Journal of Sociology 89:111–39. [aDVC], SCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, S.Cole, J. & Simon, G. A. (1981) Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 214:881–86. [aDVC, SC, LLH]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cole, S.Cole, J. & Dietrich, L. (1978) Measuring the cognitive state of scientific disciplines. In: Toward a metric of science: The advent of science indicators, ed. Elkana, Y.Lederberg, J.Merton, R. K.Thackray, A. & Zuckerman, J.. Wiley. [SC]Google Scholar
Cole, S.Rubin, L. & Cole, J. (1978) Peer review in the National Science Foundation. National Academy of Sciences. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Cole, S.Simon, G. & Cole, J. (1988) Do journal rejection rates index scientific consensus? American Sociological Review 53:152–56. [SC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colman, A. M. (1982a) Game theory and experimental games: The study of strategic interaction. Pergamon Press. [AMC]Google Scholar
Colman, A. M. (1982b) Manuscript evaluation by journal referees and editors: Randomness or bias? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:205–06. [AMC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conger, A. J. (1980) Integration and generalization of Kappa for multiple raters. Psychological Bulletin 88:322–28. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conger, A. J. (1985) Kappa reliabilities for continuous behaviors and events. Educational and Psychological Measurement 45:861–68. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conn, H. O. (1974) An experiment in blind program selection. Clinical Research 22:128–34. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Cotlier, E.Fagadau, W. & Cicchetti, D. V. (1982) Methods for evaluation of medical therapy of senile and diabetic cataracts. Transactions of the Opthalmologic Societies of the United Kingdom 102:416–22. [rDVC]Google ScholarPubMed
Cox, R. (1967) Examinations and higher education: A survey of the literature. Universities Quarterly 21:292–340. [DL]Google Scholar
Grandall, R. (1986) Peer review: Improving editorial procedures. Bio Science 36:607–09. [RC]Google Scholar
Grandall, R. (1987a) Gauntlet thrown: Publication procedures are challenged. Dialogue (APA Division 8) 1:5. [RC]Google Scholar
Grandall, R. (1987b) We need research on what constitutes good journal papers - and good editing - not guesswork on how to improve manuscripts! American Psychologist 42:407–08. [RC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandall, R. (1990) Improving editorial procedures. American Psychologist 45:665–66. [RC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, D. (1967) The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals. American Sociologist 32:195–201. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Crane, D. (1972) Invisible colleges. University of Chicago Press. [DLE]Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1981) Comment on “Chance and consensus in peer review.” Science 214:1293. [LLH]Google Scholar
Culliton, B. J. (1984) Fine-tuning peer review. Science 226:1401–02. [aDVC, RG]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darley, J. M. & Latane, B. (1968) Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8:337–83. [AMC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darlington, R. (1980) Another peek in the file drawers (unpublished manuscript). [PHS]Google Scholar
Davies, M. & Fleiss, J. L. (1982) Measuring agreement for multinomial data. Biometrics 38:1047–51. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBakey, L. & DeBakey, S. (1976) Impartial, signed reviews. New England Journal of Medicine 294:564. [aDVC]Google ScholarPubMed
Delucchi, K. L. (1983) The use and misuse of chi-square: Lewis and Burke revisited. Psychological Bulletin 94:166–76. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, J. (1985) Variations on a theme. Nature 314:222–23. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickersin, K. (1990) The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. Journal of the American Medical Association 263:1385–89. [SPL]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doherty, M. E. & Tweney, R. D. (1988) The role of data and feedback error in inference and prediction. Final report for ARI Contract MDA903-85-K-0193. [MEG]Google Scholar
Eckberg, D. (1982) Theoretical implications of failure to detect prepublished submissions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:25–26. [DLE]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eells, W. C. (1930) Reliability of reported grading of essay type examinations. Journal of Educational Psychology 21:48–52. [DL]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichorn, D. H. & VandenBos, G. R. (1985) Dissemination of scientific and professional knowledge. American Psychologist 40:1301–16. [RFB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eight APA journals initiate controversial blind reviewing (1972) APA Monitor, pp. 1, 5. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Epstein, W. M. (1990) Confirmatory response bias among social work journals. Science, Technology and Human Values 15:9–38. [rDVC, MJM]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estes, W. K. (1975) Some targets for mathematical psychology. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 12:263–82. [PHS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. T.Nadjari, H. I. & Burchell, S. A. (1990) Quotational and reference accuracy in surgical journals: A continuing peer-review problem. Journal of the American Medical Association 263:1353–54. [JSA].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feinstein, A. R. (1987) Clinimetrics. Yale University Press. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinstein, A. R. & Cicchetti, D. V. (1990) High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 43:543–49. [arDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feynman, R. P. (1985) Surely you are joking, Mr. Feynman. Bantam. [PHS]Google Scholar
Finn, R. H. (1970) A note on estimating the reliability of categorical data. Educational and Psychological Measurement 30:71–76. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, A. (1989) Seeing atoms. Popular Science: 102–07. [JSA]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, D. W. & Fogg, L. (1990) But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper!: Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. American Psychologist 45:591–98. [rDVC, JSA]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleiss, J. L. (1971) Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin 76:378–82. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleiss, J. L. (1975) Measuring agreement between two judges on the presence or absence of a trait. Biometrics 31:651–59. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fleiss, J. L. (1981) Statistical methods for rates and proportions, 2nd ed. Wiley. [aDVC, RR]Google Scholar
Fleiss, J. L. & Cicchetti, D. V. (1978) Inference about weighted kappa in the non-null case. Applied Psychological Measurement 2:113–17. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleiss, J. L. & Cohen, J. (1973) The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement 33:613–19. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleiss, J. L. & Cuzick, J. (1979) The reliability of dichotomous judgments: Unequal numbers of judges per subject. Applied Psychological Measurement 3:537–52. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleiss, J. L.Cohen, J. & Everitt, B. S. (1969) Large sample standard errors of kappa and weighted kappa. Psychological Bulletin 72:323–37. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleiss, J. L.Nee, J. C. M. & Landis, J. R. (1979) Large sample variance of kappa in the case of different sets of raters. Psychological Bulletin 86:974–77. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, C. & Tyrer, P., eds. (1989) Research methodology in psychiatry: A beginners guide. Royal College of Psychiatrists/Gaskell Books. [PT]Google Scholar
Fuller, S. (1989). Philosophy of science and its discontents. Westview Press. [MEG]Google Scholar
Furchtgott, E. (1984) Replicate, again and again. American Psychologist 39:1315–16. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garber, H. L. (1984) On Sommer & Sommer. American Psychologist 31:1315. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, C.Rosenfield, N. S.Markowitz, R. K.Seashore, J. H.Touloukian, R. J. & Cicchetti, D. V. (1987) Appendicitis in children: Accuracy of the barium enema. American Journal of Diseases of Children 141:1309–12. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, M. J.Snee, M. P.Hall, A. J.Powell, C. A.Downes, S. & Terrell, J. D. (1990) Results of case-control study of leukaemia and lymphoma among young people near Sellafield nuclear plant in West Cumbria. British Medical Journal 300:423–29. [SPL]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfield, E. (1972) Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 178:471–79. [RFB]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garfunkel, J. M.Ulshen, R. H.Hamrick, H. J. & Lawson, E. E. (1990) Problems identified by secondary review of accepted manuscripts. Journal of the American Medical Association 263:1369–71. [rDVC, SPL]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garner, W. R. (1962) Uncertainty and structure as psychological concepts. Wiley. [DL]Google Scholar
Garner, W. R. & McGill, W. J. (1956) The relation between information and variance analyses. Psychometrika 21:219–28. [arDVC], JBGCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garvey, W. D.Lin, N. & Nelson, C. E. (1970) Some comparisons of communication activities in the physical and social sciences. In: Communication among scientists and engineers, ed. Nelson, C. E. & Pollock, D. K.. Health. [SC]Google Scholar
Garvey, W. D.Lin, N. & Nelson, C. E. (1979) Communication in the physical and social sciences. In: Communication: The essence of science, ed. Garvey, W. D.. Pergamon Press. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Gholson, B. & Barker, B. (1985) Kuhn, Lakatos, and Laudan: Applications in the history of physics and psychology. American Psychologist 40:755–69. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. University of Chicago Press. [MEG]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillett, R. (1985) Nominal scale response agreement and rater uncertainty. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 38:58–66. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, J. B. (1979) Illusory reliability in journal reviewing. Canadian Psychological Review 20:157–58. [arDVC, JBG]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenn, N. D. (1976) The journal article review process: Some proposals for change. American Sociologist 11:179–85. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Goodman, L. A. & Kruskal, W. H. (1954) Measures of association for cross classifications. Journal of the American Statistical Association 49:732–64. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Goodrich, D. W. (1945) An analysis of manuscripts received by the editors of the American Sociological Review from May 1, 1944, to September 1, 1945. American Sociological Review1 10:716–25. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodstein, L. D. (1982) When will the editors start to edit? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:212–13. [LJS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodstein, L. D. & Brazis, K. L. (1970) Credibility of psychologists: An empirical study. Psychological Reports 27:835–38. [aDVC, JSA]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, M. D. (1977) Evaluating the evaluators. New Scientist 73:342–43. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Gordon, M. D. (1978) A study of the evaluation of papers by primary journals in the U.K. University of Leicester. [LLH]Google Scholar
Gorman, M. E. (1986) How the possibility of error affects falsification on a task that models scientific problem-solving. British Journal of Psychology 77:65–79. [MEG]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorman, M. E. (1989) Error, falsification and scientific inference: An experimental investigation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 385–412. [MEG]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorman, Michael E. & Gorman, Margaret E. (1984) A comparison of disconfirmatory, confirmatory and a control strategy on Wason–s 2, 4, 6 task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 12:129–40. [MEG]Google Scholar
Gottfredson, S. D. (1978) Evaluating psychology research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments. American Psychologist 33:920–34. [aDVC, RFB, JBG]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. M.Luce, R. D. & Duncan, J. E. (1977) Variability and sequential effects in magnitude production and estimation of auditory intensity. Perception & Psychophysics 22:450–56. [DL]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. M.Luce, R. D. & Smith, A. F. (1980) Individual magnitude estimates for various distributions of signal intensity. Perception & Psychophysics 27:483–88. [DL]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwald, A. G. (1975) Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin 82:1–20. [aDVC, PHS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwald, A. G. (1976) An editorial. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33:1–7. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., Pratkanis, A. R., Leippe, M. R. & Baumgardner, M. H. (1986) Under what conditions does theory obstruct research progress? Psychological Review 93:216–29. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gross, S. T. (1986) The kappa coefficient of agreement for multiple observers when the number of subjects is small. Biometrics 42:883–93. [rDVC].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grove, W. M., Andreasen, N. C., McDonald-Scott, P., Keller, M. B. & Shapiro, R. W. (1981) Reliability studies of psychiatric diagnosis: Theory and practice. Archives of General Psychiatry 38:408–13. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guilford, J. P. (1954) Psychometric methods, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill. [RR]Google Scholar
Gulliksen, H. O. (1950) Theory of mental tests. Wiley. [DL, LJS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyatt, G. H., Townsend, M. & Berman, L. (1987) A comparison of Likert and visual analogue scales for measuring change in function. Journal of Chronic Diseases 40:1129–33. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, J. A. (1979) Author review of reviewers. American Psychologist 34:798. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargens, L. L. (1988) Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review 53:139–51. [aDVC, SC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargens, L. L. (1990) Variation in journal peer-review systems: Possible causes and consequences. Journal of the American Medical Association 263:1348–52. [arDVC, LLH]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hargens, L. L. & Herting, J. R. (1990a) A new approach to referees' assessments of manuscripts. Social Science Research 19:1–16. [arDVC, LLH]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargens, L. L. & Herting, J. R. (1990b) Neglected considerations in the analysis of agreement among journal referees. Scientometrics 19:91–106. [aDVC, LLH]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harnad, S. (1979) Creative disagreement. The Sciences 19:18–20. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamad, S. ed. (1983) Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in scientific quality control. Cambridge University Press (reprinted from Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 5). [aDVC].Google Scholar
Harnad, S. (1985)Rational disagreement in peer review. Science, Technology &; Human Values 10(3):55–62. [aDVC, LJS].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harnad, S. (1986)Policing the paper chase. Nature 322:24–25. [aDVC, JBG].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartog, P., Rhodes, E. C., and Burt, C. (1936) The marks of examiners. Macmillan. [DL]Google Scholar
Heavens, R. H. Jr. & Cicchetti, D. V. (1978) A computer program for calculating rater agreement and bias statistics using contingency table input. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association (Statistical Computing Section) 21:366–70. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Hendrick, C. (1976) Editorial comment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2:27–08. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrick, C. (1977) Editorial comment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 3:1–2. [aDVC].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensler, D. (1976) Perceptions of the National Science Foundation peer-review process: A report on a survey of NSF reviewers and applicants. NSF publication 77–33. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Heskin, K. (1984) The Milwaukee Project: A cautionary comment. American Psychologist 39:1316–17. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, V. E. (1985) Research briefings: Peer-review appeals system established. American Psychological Association (APA) Monitor 16:18. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Horrobin, D. F. (1990) The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association 263:1438–41. [JSA]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howe, M. J. A. (1982) Peer reviewing: Improve or be rejected. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:218–19. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, R. & Armstrong, J. S. (1990) Replication and the development of marketing science. Marketing Department working paper, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. [JSA]Google Scholar
Hughes, H. M. (1976) Letter to the editor. American Sociologist 11:178–79. [aDVC].Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1988) Science as a process. University of Chicago Press. [LLH]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, E. (1971) Psychological publications. American Psychologist 26:311. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, K. (1975) Do we really need more replications? Psychological Reports 36:587–93. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingelfinger, F. J. (1974) Peer review in biomedical publication. American Journal of Medicine 56:686–92. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ingelfinger, F. J. (1975) Charity and peer review in publication. New England Journal of Medicine 293:1371–72. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ison, J. R. (1985) The granting system and healthy research. Science 230:376. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iyengar, S. & Greenhouse, J. B. (1988) Selection model and the file drawer hypothesis. Statistical Science 33:109–35. [PHS]Google Scholar
Jesteadt, W., Luce, R. D. & Green, D. M. (1977) Sequential effects in judgment of loudness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 3:92–104. [DL]Google ScholarPubMed
Jesteadt, W., Wier, C. C. & Green, D. M. (1977) Intensity discrimination as a function of frequency and sensation level. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 61:169–77. [DL]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jonckheere, A. R. (1970) Techniques for ordered contingency tables. In: Proceedings of the NUFFIC International Summer Session in Science, Het Oude Hof ed. Riemersma, J. B. & van der Meer, H. C.. The Hague. [aDVC].Google Scholar
Jones, R. (1974) Rights, wrongs, and referees. New Scientist 61:758–59. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A., eds. (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press. [HLR]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamin, L. J. (1981) The intelligence controversy, ed. Eysenck, H. J.. Wiley. [PHS]Google Scholar
Kazdin, A. E. (1982) Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. Oxford University Press. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Kerr, S., Tolliver, J. & Petree, D. (1977) Manuscript characteristics which influence acceptance for management and social science journals. Academy of Management Journal 20:132–41. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klayman, J. & Ha, Y.-W. (1987) Confirmation, discontinuation and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review 94:211–28. [MEG]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koran, L. M. (1975a) The reliability of clinical methods, data, and judgments. New England Journal of Medicine 293:642–46. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koran, L. M. (1975b) The reliability of clinical methods, data, and judgments. New England Journal of Medicine 293:695–701. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koshland, D. E. Jr. (1985) Peer review of peer review. Science 228:1387. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kraemer, H. C. (1980) Extension of the kappa coefficient. Biometrics 36:207–16. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kraemer, H. C. (1982) Estimating false alarms and missed events from interobserver agreement: Comment on Kaye. Psychological Bulletin 92:749–54. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraemer, H. C. (1988) Assessment of 2x2 associations: Generalization or signal-detection methodology. The American Statistician 42:37–49. [rDVC]Google Scholar
Kraus, C. A. (1950) The present state of academic research. Chemical and Engineering News 28:3203–04. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (1970) Bivariate agreement coefficients for reliability of data. In: Sociological methodology, ed. Borgatta, E. G.. Jossey-Bass. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Krystal, J., Giller, E. & Cicchetti, D. V. (1986) Assessment of alexithymia in post-traumatic stress disorder and psychosomatic illness: Introduction of a reliable measure. Psychosomatic Medicine 48:84–94. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, T. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press. [aDVC, LDN]Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1972) Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Criticism and the growth of knowledge, ed. Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A.. Cambridge University Press. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Laming, D. (1984) The relativity of “absolute” judgments. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 37:152–83. [DL]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laming, D. (1990) The reliability of a certain university examination compared with the precision of absolute judgments. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 42A:239–54. [DL]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laming, D. (in press) Reconciling Fechner and Stevens? Behavioral and Brain Sciences. [DL]Google Scholar
Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:1599–74. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Latane, B., Williams, K. & Harkins, S. (1979) Many hands make light work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:822–32. [AMC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1984) Science and values: The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. University of California Press. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Lawlis, G. F. & Lu, E. (1972) Judgment of counseling process: Reliability, agreement, and error. Psychological Bulletin 78:17–20. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lazarus, D. (1982) Interreferee agreement and acceptance rates in physics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:219. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeLewis, D. & Burke, C. J. (1949) The use and misuse of the chi square test. Psychological Bulletin 46:433–89. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, C. (1979) Introduction to statistics: A nonparametric approach for the social sciences. John Wiley. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Lindsey, D. (1977) Participation and influence in publication review proceedings. American Psychologist 32:379–86. [RFB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsey, D. (1978) The scientific publication system in social science. Jossey-Bass. [aDVC, RFB]Google Scholar
Lindsey, D. (1988) Assessing precision in the manuscript review process: A little better than a dice roll. Scientometrics 14:75–82. [LLH]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lock, S. (1985) A difficult balance: Editorial peer review in medicine. ISI Press. [aDVC, JF]Google Scholar
Lodahl, J. B. (1970) Paradigm development as a source of consensus in scientific fields (unpublished master's thesis). [aDVC]Google Scholar
Lord, F. N. & Novick, M. R. (1968) Statistical theories of mental test scores. Addison-Wesley. [LLH]Google Scholar
Luce, R. D. (1989) A history of psychology in autobiography, vol. 8, ed. Lindzey, G.. Stanford University Press. [PHS]Google Scholar
Luce, R. D. & Green, D. M. (1978) Two tests of a neural attention hypothesis for auditory psychophysics. Perception & Psychophysics 23:363–71. [DL].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luce, R. D., Nosofsky, R. M., Green, D. M. & Smith, A. F. (1982) The bow and sequential effects in absolute identification. Perception & Psychophysics 32:397–408. [DL].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Machol, R. (1981) Letter to the editor. The Sciences 21:xxi. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Maher, B. A. (1978) A reader's, writer's, and reviewer's guide to assessing research reports in clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 46:835–38. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahoney, M. J. (1976) Scientist as subject: The psychological imperative. Ballinger. [LLH].Google Scholar
Mahoney, M. J. (1977) Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy Research 1:161–75. [aDVC, LDN, PHS, SPL, JSA].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, M. J. (1978) Publish and perish. Human Behavior 7:38–41. [aDVC].Google Scholar
Mahoney, M. J. (1982) Publication, politics, and scientific progress. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:220–21. [AMC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, M. J. (1985) Open exchange and epistemic progress. American Psychologist 40:29–39. [ADVC, JBG, RFB, JF]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, M. J. (1987) Scientific publication and knowledge politics. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 2:165–76. [RFB]Google Scholar
Mahoney, M. J. (1990) Bias, controversy, and abuse in the study of the scientific publication system. Science, Technology, & Human Values 15:50–55. [MJM]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, M. J., Kazdin, A. E. & Kenigsberg, M. (1978) Getting published. Cognitive Therapy and Research 2:69–70. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margulis, L. (1977) Letter to the editor: Peer review attacked. The Sciences 17:5, 31. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W. & Ball, S. (1981) Interjudgmental reliability of reviews for the Journal of Educational Psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology 73:872–80. [aDVC], HWMCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, H. W. & Ball, S. (1989) The peer review process used to evaluate manuscripts submitted to academic journals: Interjudgmental reliability. Journal of Experimental Education 57:151–69. [HWM]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, P., Sharpe, M. R., Spiesel, S. Z., Dolan, T. F., Forsyth, B. W., DeWitt, T. G., Fink, H. D., Baron, M. A. & Cicchetti, D. V. (1982) Observation scales to identify serious illness in febrile children. Pediatrics 70:802–09. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, P. L., Sznajderman, S. D., Lustman-Findling, K., Baron, M. A., Fink, H. D., Czarkowski, N., Bauchner, H., Forsyth, B. C. & Cicchetti, D. V. (1990) Mothers' clinical judgment: A randomized trial of the acute illness observation scales. Journal of Pediatrics 116:200–06. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCartney, J. L. (1978) Making sense of reviewers' comments. Paper presented to the Southern Sociological Association Meetings, New Orleans, LA. [aDVC]Google Scholar
McNemar, Q. (1947) Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika 12:153–57. [rDVC].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNemar, Q. (1955) Psychological statistics. Wiley. [GSW]Google Scholar
McNutt, R. A., Evans, A. T., Fletcher, R. H. & Fletcher, S. W. (1990) The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 263:137–76. [rDVC, JSA, SPL]Google ScholarPubMed
Merton, R. K. (1973) The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press. [aDVC, DLE]Google Scholar
Meyer, G. S. (1979) Academic labor and the development of science (unpublished doctoral dissertation). State University of New York at Stony Brook. [SC]Google Scholar
Mezzich, J. E., Kraemer, H. C., Worthington, D. R. L. & Coffman, G. A. (1981) Assessment of agreement among several raters formulating multiple diagnoses. Journal of Psychiatric Research 16:29–39. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitroff, I. I. & Chubin, D. E. (1979) Peer review at the NSF: A dialectical policy and analysis. Social Studies of Science 9:199–232. Sage [aDVC]Google Scholar
Mulkay, M. (1977) Sociology of the scientific research community. In: Science, technology, and society, ed. Spiegel-Rosing, I. & de Solla Price, D.. Sage. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Mulkay, M. & William, A. T. (1971) A sociological study of a physics department. British Journal of Sociology 22:68–80. [SC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, R. J. L. (1978) Reliability of marking in eight GCE examinations. British Journal of Educational Psychology 48:196–200. [DL]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, R. J. L. (1982) A further report of investigations into the reliability of marking of GCE examinations. British Journal of Educational Psychology 52:58–63. [DL]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1988) The behavioral and social sciences: Achievements and opportunities. National Academy Press. [MJM]Google Scholar
Nelson, L., Satz, P., Mitrushiea, M., Van Gorp, W., Cicchetti, D., Lewis, R. & Van Lancker, D. (1989) Development and validation of the Neuropsychology Behavior and Affect Profile. Psychological Assessmen: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1:266–72. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, H., Freeman, F. & Holzinger, K. (1937) Twins. A study of heredity and environment. University of Chicago Press. [PHS].Google Scholar
Newman, S. H. (1966) Improving the evaluation of submitted manuscripts. American Psychologist 21:980–81. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980) Human inference: Strategies and shortcomingsin human judgments. Prentice-Hall. [HLR]Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E. & Wilson, T. D. (1977) The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and socialPsychology 35:250–56.[RFB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noble, J. H. (1974) Peer review: Quality control of applied social research. Science 185:916–21. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nunnally, J. C. (1978) Psychometric theory, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Orlinsky, D. & Howard, K. (1978) The relation of process to outcome in psychotherapy. In: Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change, ed. Garfield, S. & Bergin, A.. John Wiley & Sons. [LDN]Google Scholar
Orr, R. H. & Kassab, J. (1965) Peer group judgments on scientific merit: Editorial refereeing. Paper presented to the Congress of the International Federation of Documentation, Washington, D.C. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Over, R. (1982) What is the source of bias in peer review?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:229–30. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxman, A. D., Guyatt, G. H., Singer, J., Goldsmith, C. H., Hutchison, B. G., Milner, R. A. & Streiner, D. L. (1991) Agreement among reviewers of review articles. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 44:91–98. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, E. H. (1969) Evaluation of manuscripts submitted for publication. American Psychologist 24:73. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, K. & Bailar, J. C. III (1985) A review of journal peer review. In: Selectivity in information systems: Survival of the fittest, ed. Warren, K. S.. Praeger Scientific. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Peters, C. (1976) Multiple submissions: Why not?. American Sociologist 11:165–79. [aDVC]Google 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. [aDVC, AMC, DLE]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, J., Leong, A. & Strehl, K. (1977) Paradigm development and particularism: Journal publication in three scientific disciplines. Social Forces 55:938–51. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Physical Review & Physical Review Letters (1987) Annual report 1986. [rDVC]Google Scholar
Pollack, I. (1952) The information of elementary auditory displays. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 24:745–49. [DL]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollack, I. (1953) The information of elementary auditory displays. II Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 25:765–69. [DL]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, D. de Solla (1963) Little science, big science. Columbia University Press. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, L. N., Soley, L. C. & Wimmer, R. D. (1981) Replications in advertising research: 1977, 1978, 1979. Journal of Advertising 10:3–13. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Relman, A. S. (1978) Are journals really quality filters? Rockefeller Foundation working papers (conference, May 22–23). Coping with the biomedical literature explosion: A qualitative approach. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Remington, M., Tyrer, P. J., Newson-Smith, J. & Cicchetti, D. V. (1979) Comparative reliability of categorical and analogue rating scales in the assessment of psychiatric symptomatology. Psychological Medicine 9:765–70. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rennie, D. (1986) Guarding the guardians: A conference on editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 256:2391–92. [MJM]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, W. A. (1976) Failure to replicate visual discrimination learning with a 1-min delay of reward. Learning and Motivation, 7, 313–25. [TRZ]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, P. (1976) Towards open refereeing. New Scientist 71:410. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Robinson, W. S. (1957) The statistical measurement of agreement. American Sociological Review 22:17–25. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodman, H. (1970) The moral responsibility of journal editors and referees. American Sociologist 5:351–57. [RC]Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L. III (1987) The role of journal editors in the scientific process. In: Scientific excellence: Origins and assessment, ed. Jackson, D. N. and Rushton, J. P.. Sage. [LLH, HLR]Google Scholar
Rogot, E. & Goldberg, I. D. (1966) A proposed index for measuring agreement in test-retest studies. Journal of Chronic Diseases 19:991–1006. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romanczyk, R. G., Kent, R. N., Diament, C. & O'Leary, K. D. (1973) Measuring the reliability of observational data: A reactive process. Journal of Applied Analysis 6:175–84. [JDC]Google Scholar
Rosenfield, N. S., Ablow, R. C., Markowitz, R. I., DiPietro, M., Seashore, J. H., Touloukian, R. J. & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984) Hirschsprung Disease: Accuracy of the barium enema examination. Radiology 150:393–400. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenthal, R. (1979) The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results Psychological Bulletin 86:638–41. [PHS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (1984) Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Sage. [RR]Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (1987) Judgment studies: Design, analysis, and meta-analysis. Cambridge University Press. [RR]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R. L. (1984) Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. McGraw-Hill. [RR]Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R. L. (1985) Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press. [RR]Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. & Rubin, D. B. (1978) Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3:377–415. [PHS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R. & Rubin, D. B. (1982) A simple, general purpose display of magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology 74:166–69. [RR]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rourke, B. P. & Costa, L. (1979) Editorial policy II. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology 1:93–96. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowney, J. A. & Zenisek, T. J. (1980) Manuscript characteristics influencing reviewers' decisions. Canadian Psychology 21:17–21. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, R. (1985) Funding science: The real defects of peer review and an alternative to it. Science, Technology, and Human Values 10:73–81. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, D. B. (1982) Rejection, rebuttal, revision: Some flexible features of peer review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2:236–37. [PHS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarr, S. (1982) Anosmic peer review: A rose by another name is evidently not a rose. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:237–38. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarr, S. & Weber, B. L. R. (1978) The reliability of reviews for the American Psychologist. American Psychologist 33:935. [aDVC, LJS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schönemann, P. H. (1971) The minimum average correlation between equivalent sets of uncorrelated factors. Psychometrika 36:21–30. [PHS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schönemann, P. H. (1989) New questions about old heritability estimates. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 27:175–78. [PHS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schönemann, P. H. & Wang, M. M. (1972) Some new results on factor indeterminancy. Psychometrika 37:61–91. [PHS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, W. A. (1974) Interreferee agreement on some characteristics of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. American Psychologist 29:698–702. [aDVC, CAK]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, D. W. (1990) What can and should be done to reduce publication bias?. Journal of the American Medical Association 263:1390–91. [SPL]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shrout, P. E., Spitzer, R. L. & Fleiss, J. L. (1987) Quantification of agreement in psychiatric diagnosis revisited. Archives of General Psychiatry 44:172–77. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smart, R. (1964) The importance of negative results in psychological research. Canadian Psychologist 5a:225–32. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smigel, E. O. & Ross, H. L. (1970) Factors in the editorial decision. American Sociologist 5:19–21. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Smith, K. (1977) Letter to the editor: Peer review defended. The Sciences 17:5. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1967) Statistical methods, 6th ed. Iowa State University Press. [RR]Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1980) Statistical methods, 7th ed. Iowa State University Press. [RR]Google Scholar
Solomon, D. L. (1989) Editorial communication. Biometrics, June 21. [PHS]Google Scholar
Sommer, R. & Sommer, B. A. (1984) Reply from Sommer & Sommer. American Psychologist 39:1318–19. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soper, H. V., Cicchetti, D. V., Satz, P., Light, R. & Orsini, D. L. (1988) Null hypothesis disrespect in neuropsychology: Dangers of alpha and beta errors. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 10:255–70. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A. & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984a) The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: A revision of the Vineland Social Maturity Scale by E. A. Doll. I. Survey form. American Guidance Service. [rDVC]Google Scholar
Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A. & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984b) The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: A revision of the Vineland Social Maturity Scale by E. A. Doll. II. Expanded form. American Guidance Service. [rDVC]Google Scholar
Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A. & Cicchetti, D. V. (1985) The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: A revision of the Vineland Social Maturity Scale by E. A. Doll. III. Classroom edition. American Guidance Service. [rDVC]Google Scholar
Spearman, K. (1927) The abilities of man. MacMillan. [PHS]Google Scholar
Spitzer, R. L. & Fleiss, J. L. (1974) A reanalysis of the reliability of psychiatric diagnosis. British Journal of Psychiatry 125:341–47. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steiger, J. J. & Schonemann, P. H. (1976) A history of factor indeterminancy. In: Theory construction and data analysis in the behavioral sciences, ed. Shye, S.. Jossey-Bass. [PHS]Google Scholar
Steinberg, M., Rounsaville, B. & Cicchetti, D. V. (1990) Interview for DSM- III-R dissociative disorders: Preliminary report on a new diagnostic instrument. American Journal of Psychiatry 147:76–82. [rDVC]Google ScholarPubMed
Sterling, T. D. (1959) Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance - or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association 54:30–34. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Stevens, J. C. & Tulving, E. (1957) Estimations of loudness by a group of untrained observers. American Journal of Psychology 70:600–05. [DL]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevens, S. S. (1971) Issues in psychophysical measurement. Psychological Review 78:426–50. [DL]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stinchcombe, A. L. & Ofshe, R. (1969) On journal editing as a probabilistic process. American Sociologist 4:116–17. [rDVC, SC]Google Scholar
Stumpf, W. E. (1980) Letters: “Peer” review. Science 207:822–23. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Summary Report of Journal Operations (1989) American Psychologist 44:1070. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surwillo, W. W. (1986) Anonymous reviewing and the peer review process. American Psychologist 41:218. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, G. J. (1982) Perhaps it was right to reject the resubmitted manuscripts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:240. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, H. (1985) On the “file drawer” problem (unpublished manuscript). [PHS]Google Scholar
Tinsley, H. E. A. & Weiss, D. J. (1975) Interrater reliability and agreement of subjective judgments. Journal of Counseling Psychology 22:358–76. [LLH]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. (1958) Theory and methods of scaling. Wiley. [DL]Google Scholar
Tyrer, P., Cicchetti, D. V., Casey, P. R., Fitzpatrick, K., Oliver, R., Baiter, A., Ciller, E. & Harkness, L. (1984) Cross-national reliability study of a schedule for assessing personality disorders. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 172:718–21. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyrer, P., Owen, R. & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984) The Brief Scale for Anxiety: A subdivision of the Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 47:970–75. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyrer, P., Strauss, J. & Cicchetti, D. V. (1983) Temporal reliability of personality in psychiatric patients. Psychological Medicine 13:393–98. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uebersax, J. S. (1981) GKAPPA: Generalized kappa coefficient. Applied Psychological Measurement 5:28. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uebersax, J. S. (1982) A generalized kappa coefficient. Educational and Psychological Measurement 42:181–83. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uebersax, J. S. (1989) Latent structure modeling of ordered category rating agreement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, UCLA, Los Angeles (A Rand Rand Corp. Note). [rDVC]Google Scholar
Ubersax, J. & Grove, W. (1989) Latent structure agreement analysis. Rand Corp. (A Rand Note). [rDVC]Google Scholar
Volkmar, F. R., Cicchetti, D. V., Dykens, E., Sparrow, S. S., Leckman, J. F. & Cohen, D. J. (1988) An evaluation of the Autism Behavior Checklist. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 18:81–97. [rDVC]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wason, P. C. (1960) On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129–40. [MEG]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, M. W. (1979) Chance and interrater agreement on manuscripts. American Psychologist 34:796–97. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehurst, G. J. (1983) Interrater agreement for reviews for Developmental Review. Developmental Review 3:73–78. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehurst, G. J. (1984) Interrater agreement for journal manuscript reviews. American Psychologist 39:22–28. [aDVC, MED]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, S. L., Urivetsky, M., Bregman, D., Cohen, J., Eich, R., Gootman, N., Gulotta, S., Taylor, B., Tuttle, R., Webb, W. & Wright, J. (1977) Peer review: Inter-reviewer agreement during evaluation of research grant applications. Clinical Research 25:306–11. [aDVC]Google ScholarPubMed
Wilson, E. B. (1928) Review of “The Abilities of Man, Their Nature and Measurement,” by C. Spearman. Science 67:244–48. [PHS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. D. (1978) Peer review and publication. Journal of Clinical Investigation 61:1697–1701. [PT]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolff, W. M. (1970) A study of criteria for journal manuscripts. American Psychologist 25:36–39. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, W. M. (1973) Publication problems in psychology and an explicit evaluation schema for manuscripts. American Psychologist 28:257–61. [aDVC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, R. D. (1970) Truth and its keeper. New Scientist 45:402–04. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Wyer, R. S., Greenwald, A. G.Bernard, H. R., Crandall, R. & Anon. (1987) Comments on “The publication game.” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 2:13–22. [RC]Google Scholar
Yotopoulos, P. A. (1961) Institutional affiliation of the contributors to three professional journals. American Economic Review 5:665–70. [aDVC]Google Scholar
Ziman, J. (1968) Public knowledge: The social dimension of science. Cambridge University Press. [AMC]Google Scholar
Ziman, J. (1976) The force of knowledge: The scientific dimension of society. Cambridge University Press. [AMC]Google Scholar
Zuckerman, H. & Merton, R. K. (1971) Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalization, structure, and functions of the referee system. Minerva 9:66–100. [aDVC, LLH]CrossRefGoogle Scholar