Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T06:59:30.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bringing the review process into the 21st century: Post-publication peer review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2020

P. D. Harms  and
Marcus Credé
P. D. Harms*
Affiliation:
University of Alabama
Marcus Credé
Affiliation:
Iowa State University
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
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. 51 - 53
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

Bastion, H. (2014). A stronger post-publication culture is needed for better science. PLOS Medicine, 11, e1001772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortina, J. M., Green, J. P., Keeler, K. R., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2017). Degrees of freedom in SEM: Are we testing our hypothesized models? Organizational Research Methods, 20, 350–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Credé, M., & Harms, P. D. (2015). 25 years of higher-order confirmatory factor analysis in the organizational sciences: A critical review and development of reporting recommendations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 845–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Credé, M., & Harms, P. D. (2019). Questionable research and reporting practices when using confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34, 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, S. T. (2016, November 1). A call to change science’s culture of shaming. APS Observer. Retrieved from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/2016/nov-16/a-call-to-change-sciences-culture-of-shaming.htmGoogle Scholar
Harms, P. D., Credé, M., & DeSimone, J. A. (2018). The last line of defense: Corrigenda and retractions. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11, 61–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herron, D. (2012). Is expert review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review. Surgical Endoscopy, 26, 2275–2280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, E. (1995). Swan song. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 347–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, J. (2012). Post-publication peer review: Opening up scientific conversation. Frontiers of Computational Neuroscience, 6, 63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Köhler, T., Gonzales-Morales, M. G., Banks, G., O’Boyle, E., Allen, J., Sinha, R., … Gulick, L. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuijten, M. B., Hartgerink, C. H. J., van Assen, M. A. L. M., Epskamp, S., & Wicherts, J. M. (2016). The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013). Behavior Research Methods, 48, 1205–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, T., & Harms, P.D. (2019). That’s interesting! Or is it? On the incommensurability of academic and practitioner interests. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2019.276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. (2010). Classical peer review: An empty gun. Breast Cancer Research, 12, 13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teixeira da Silva, J. (2015). Debunking post-publication peer review. International Journal of Education and Information Technology, 1, 34–37.Google Scholar
Teixeira da Silva, J., & Dobranszki, J. (2015). Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research, 22, 22–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teixeira da Silva, J., Al-Khatib, A., & Dobranszki, J. (2017). Fortifying the corrective nature of post-publication peer review: Identifying weaknesses, use of journal clubs, and rewarding conscientious behavior. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23, 1213–1226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ware, M. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journal: Perspective of the scholarly community—results from an international study. Information Science & Use, 28, 109–112.Google Scholar
Wets, K., Weedon, D., & Velterop, J. (2003). Post-publication filtering and evaluation: Faculty of 1000. Learned Publishing, 16, 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, P. (2016). Ensuring research integrity: An editor’s perspective. Journal of Management, 42, 1037–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar