IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/sprchp/978-3-319-09785-5_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Interrater Reliability of the Peer Review Process in Management Journals

In: Incentives and Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander T. Nicolai

    (Carl von Ossietzky Universität)

  • Stanislaw Schmal

    (Carl von Ossietzky Universität)

  • Charlotte L. Schuster

    (Carl von Ossietzky Universität)

Abstract

Peer review is an established method of assessing the quality and contribution of academic performance in most scientific disciplines. Up to now, little is known about interrater agreement among reviewers in management journals. This paper aims to provide an overview of agreement among the judgments of reviewers in management studies. The results of our literature review indicate a low level of agreement among reviewers in management journals. However, low consensus is not specific to management studies but widely present in other sciences as well. We discuss the consequences and implications of low judgment agreement for management research.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander T. Nicolai & Stanislaw Schmal & Charlotte L. Schuster, 2015. "Interrater Reliability of the Peer Review Process in Management Journals," Springer Books, in: Isabell M. Welpe & Jutta Wollersheim & Stefanie Ringelhan & Margit Osterloh (ed.), Incentives and Performance, edition 127, pages 107-119, Springer.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-3-319-09785-5_7
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-09785-5_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Feliciani, Thomas & Morreau, Michael & Luo, Junwen & Lucas, Pablo & Shankar, Kalpana, 2022. "Designing grant-review panels for better funding decisions: Lessons from an empirically calibrated simulation model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    2. Osterloh, Margit & Frey, Bruno S., 2020. "How to avoid borrowed plumes in academia," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-3-319-09785-5_7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.