Does the Need for Agreement Among Reviewers Inhibit the Publication of Controversial Findings?
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.
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. "Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors," General Economics and Teaching 0502059, EconWPA.
- JS Armstrong, 2005. "Is Review By Peers As Fair As It Appears?," General Economics and Teaching 0502058, EconWPA.
- JS Armstrong, 2005. "Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author’s Formula," General Economics and Teaching 0502057, EconWPA.
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.