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

This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data

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

Author Info

JS Armstrong (The Wharton School)
Raymond Hubbard (Drake University)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

J. Scott Armstrong

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
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.

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

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
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://129.3.20.41

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (EconWPA).

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
A - General Economics and Teaching

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

NEP-ALL-2005-04-16 (All new papers)

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.:

JS Armstrong, 2005. "Is Review By Peers As Fair As It Appears?," General Economics and Teaching 0502058, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
JS Armstrong, 2005. "Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author’s Formula," General Economics and Teaching 0502057, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
JS Armstrong, 2005. "Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors," General Economics and Teaching 0502059, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]

Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, 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.)

JS Armstrong, 2005. "Quality Control Versus Innovation in Research on Marketing," General Economics and Teaching 0502050, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
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. [Downloadable!]

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Did you know? The yearly budget of IDEAS is exactly $0: it relies entirely on volunteer work.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-9.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.