Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:34:19.450Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quality standards and training are important in the peer review process, but what about engagement?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2020

Peter J. Jordan Open the ORCID record for Peter J. Jordan [Opens in a new window]
Peter J. Jordan*
Affiliation:
Griffith 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. 61 - 63
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

Fox, J., & Petchey, O. L. (2010). Pubcreds: Fixing the peer review process by “privatizing” the reviewer commons. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 91(3), 325–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazen, B. T., Fawcett, S. E., Ogden, J. A., Autry, C. W., Richey, R. G., & Ellinger, A. E. (2016). Addressing a broken peer review process. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 27, 622–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhler, T., González-Morales, M. G., Banks, G. C., O’Boyle, E. H., 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
Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P., & Trinquart, L. (2016). The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: Strong imbalance in the collective enterprise. PLoS ONE, 11, 1–14. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166387CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, T. R. (2007). The academic life: Realistic changes needed for business school students and faculty. Academtry of Management Learning & Education, 6(2), 236–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rennie, D. (2016). Let’s make peer review scientific. Nature, 535, 31–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, D. R. (2016). Will Publons popularize the scientific peer review process? BioScience, 66(4), 265–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G., & Takács, K. (2013). Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study. Research Policy, 42(1), 287–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Al-Khatib, A. (2019). The ClarivateTM Analytics acquisition of Publons—an evolution or commodification of peer review? Research Ethics, 15, 438–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar