Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:10:21.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Should you sign your reviews? Open peer review and review quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2020

Don C. Zhang Open the ORCID record for Don C. Zhang [Opens in a new window] ,
Rachel Williamson Smith Open the ORCID record for Rachel Williamson Smith [Opens in a new window]  and
Sheryl Lobo
Don C. Zhang*
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University
Rachel Williamson Smith
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University
Sheryl Lobo
Affiliation:
Louisiana 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. 45 - 47
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

Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen justice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33, 55–75. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, M., Nettle, D., & Roberts, G. (2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biology Letters, 2(3), 412–414.10.1098/rsbl.2006.0509CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruce, R., Chauvin, A., Trinquart, L., Ravaud, P., & Boutron, I. (2016). Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medicine, 14(1), 85.10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godlee, F. (2002). Making reviewers visible: Openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA, 287(21), 2762–2765.10.1001/jama.287.21.2762CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302(5649), 1338–1339. doi:10.1126/science.1091721CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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), 1–27.10.1017/iop.2019.121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255–275. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynam, D. R., Hyatt, C. S., Hopwood, C. J., Wright, A. G. C., & Miller, J. D. (2019). Should psychologists sign their reviews? Some thoughts and some data. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128, 541–546. doi:10.1037/abm0000426CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mero, N. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1995). Effects of rater accountability on the accuracy and the favorability of performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 517–524.10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & Aguinis, H. (2019). HARKing: How badly can cherry-picking and question trolling produce bias in published results? Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(1), 1–17. doi:10.1007/s10869-017-9524-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross-Hellauer, T., Deppe, A., & Schmidt, B. (2017). Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLOS One, 12(12), e0189311. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189311CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shu, L. L., Mazar, N., Gino, F., Ariely, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2012). Signing at the beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(38), 15197–15200. doi:10.1073/pnas.1209746109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suls, J., & Martin, R. (2009). The air we breathe: A critical look at practices and alternatives in the peer-review process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 40–50.10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01105.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rooyen, S., Delamothe, T., & Evans, S. J. W. (2010). Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: Randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 341, c5729. doi:10.1136/bmj.c5729CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed