Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation
AbstractI reviewed the published empirical evidence concerning journal peer review, which consisted of 68 papers, all but three published since 1975. Peer review improves quality, but its use to screen papers has met with limited success. Current procedures to assure quality and fairness seem to discourage scientific advancement, especially important innovations, because findings that conflict with current beliefs are often judged to have defects. Editors can use procedures to encourage the publication of papers with innovative findings such as invited papers, early-acceptance procedures, author nominations of reviewers, results-blind reviews, structured rating sheets, open peer review, and, in particular, electronic publication. Some journals are currently using these procedures. The basic principle behind the proposals is to change the decision from whether to publish a paper to how to publish it
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by EconWPA in its series General Economics and Teaching with number 0412027.
Length: 33 pages
Date of creation: 10 Dec 2004
Date of revision:
Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 33
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://22.214.171.124
peer review; journals; publications;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- A - General Economics and Teaching
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Prüfer, J. & Zetland, D., 2007.
"An Auction Market for Journal Articles,"
2007-027, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
- Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2009.
"Research Governance in Academia: Are there Alternatives to Academic Rankings?,"
CESifo Working Paper Series
2797, CESifo Group Munich.
- Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2009. "Research Governance in Academia: Are there Alternatives to Academic Rankings?," CREMA Working Paper Series 2009-17, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
- Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2009. "Research governance in academia: are there alternatives to academic rankings?," IEW - Working Papers 423, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Libman, A., 2011. "German Economics: Mechanisms of Transformation," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, issue 9, pages 129-149.
- Green, Kesten C. & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2012. "Evidence on the effects of mandatory disclaimers in advertising," MPRA Paper 37766, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Oswald, Andrew J., 2008. "Can We Test for Bias in Scientific Peer-Review?," IZA Discussion Papers 3665, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Kesten C. Green & J. Scott Armstrong, 2005. "Competitor-oriented Objectives: The Myth of Market Share," Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Papers 17/05, Monash University, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.