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

Does the Need for Agreement Among Reviewers Inhibit the Publication of Controversial Findings?

Contents:

Author Info

  • JS Armstrong

    (The Wharton School)

  • Raymond Hubbard

    (Drake University)

Abstract

As Cicchetti indicates, agreement among reviewers is not high. This conclusion is empirically supported by Fiske and Fogg (1990), who reported that two independent reviews of the same papers typically had no critical point in common. Does this imply that journal editors should strive for a high level of reviewer consensus as a criterion for publication? Prior research suggests that such a requirement would inhibit the publication of papers with controversial findings. We summarize this research and report on a survey of editors.

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/0502/0502052.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by EconWPA in its series General Economics and Teaching with number 0502052.

as in new window
Length: 4 pages
Date of creation: 11 Feb 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502052

Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 4
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://128.118.178.162

Related research

Keywords: publication; controversial findings; review;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Is Review By Peers As Fair As It Appears?," General Economics and Teaching 0502058, EconWPA.
  2. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors," General Economics and Teaching 0502059, EconWPA.
  3. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author’s Formula," General Economics and Teaching 0502057, EconWPA.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

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

Cited by:
  1. 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.
  2. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Quality Control Versus Innovation in Research on Marketing," General Economics and Teaching 0502050, EconWPA.

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:0502052. 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.