Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:36:29.497Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An empirical exploration of reviewers’ and editors’ roles fostering high quality research during peer review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2020

Roxanne Ross  and
Eric D. Heggestad
Roxanne Ross*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Eric D. Heggestad
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
*
*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. 32 - 36
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

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Banks, G. C., O’Boyle, E. H., Pollack, J. M., White, C. D., Batchelor, J. H., Whelpley, C. E., … Adkins, C. L. (2016). Questions about questionable research practices in the field of management: A guest commentary. Journal of Management, 42(1), 5–20. doi: 10.1177/0149206315619011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, N., Delaney, H., & Spoelstra, S. (2017). The gray zone: Questionable research practices in the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(1). doi: 10.5465/amle.2015.0201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J. R., & Berry, J. W. (2010). The presence of something or the absence of nothing: Increasing theoretical precision in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 668–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emerson, G. B., Warme, W. J., Wolf, F. M., Heckman, J. D., Brand, R. A., & Leopold, S. S. (2010). Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Internal Medicine, 170(21), 1934–1939. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.406CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Köhler, T., González-Morales, M. G., Banks, G. C., O’Boyle, E., Allen, J. A., Sinha, R., … Gulick, L. M. V. (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
LeBel, E. P., Borsboom, D., Giner-Sorolla, R., Hasselman, F., Peters, K. R., Ratliff, K. A., & Smith, C. T. (2013). PsychDisclosure.org grassroots support for reforming reporting standards in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 424–432. doi: 10.1177/1745691613491437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed