Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation

Contents:

Author Info

  • JS Armstrong

    (The Wharton School - University of Pennsylvania)

Abstract

I 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 Info

If 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.
File URL: http://128.118.178.162/eps/get/papers/0412/0412027.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by EconWPA in its series General Economics and Teaching with number 0412027.

as in new window
Length: 33 pages
Date of creation: 10 Dec 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0412027

Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 33
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://128.118.178.162

Related research

Keywords: peer review; journals; publications;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

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

Cited by:
  1. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2009. "Research Governance in Academia: Are there Alternatives to Academic Rankings?," CESifo Working Paper Series 2797, CESifo Group Munich.
  2. Prüfer, J. & Zetland, D., 2007. "An Auction Market for Journal Articles," Discussion Paper 2007-027, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
  3. Green, Kesten C. & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2012. "Evidence on the effects of mandatory disclaimers in advertising," MPRA Paper 37766, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  4. Libman, A., 2011. "German Economics: Mechanisms of Transformation," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, issue 9, pages 129-149.
  5. Oswald, Andrew J., 2008. "Can We Test for Bias in Scientific Peer-Review?," IZA Discussion Papers 3665, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  6. 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.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0412027. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA).

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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