IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpgt/0502058.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is Review By Peers As Fair As It Appears?

Author

Listed:
  • JS Armstrong

    (The Wharton School)

Abstract

Recent research shows that journal reviewing practices are neither objective nor fair. I propose a procedure to increase the likelihood of publishing important papers. This will be tested by Interfaces for a year.

Suggested Citation

  • JS Armstrong, 2005. "Is Review By Peers As Fair As It Appears?," General Economics and Teaching 0502058, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502058
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/get/papers/0502/0502058.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author’s Formula," General Economics and Teaching 0502057, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors," General Economics and Teaching 0502059, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. JS Armstrong & Raymond Hubbard, 2005. "Does the Need for Agreement Among Reviewers Inhibit the Publication of Controversial Findings?," General Economics and Teaching 0502052, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. JS Armstrong & Estella Bee Dagum & Robert Fildes & Spyros Makridakis, 2005. "Publishing Standards for Research in Forecasting (Editorial)," General Economics and Teaching 0502054, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. JS Armstrong & Raymond Hubbard, 2005. "Does the Need for Agreement Among Reviewers Inhibit the Publication of Controversial Findings?," General Economics and Teaching 0502052, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. JS Armstrong, 2005. "The Importance of Objectivity and Falsification in Management Science," General Economics and Teaching 0502055, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. J. Scott Armstrong, 1986. "The value of formal planning for strategic decisions: Reply," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(2), pages 183-185, March.
    4. J. S. Armstrong, 2005. "Learner Responsibility in Management Education, or Ventures into Forbidden Research (with Comments)," General Economics and Teaching 0502012, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors," General Economics and Teaching 0502059, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. JS Armstrong & Estella Bee Dagum & Robert Fildes & Spyros Makridakis, 2005. "Publishing Standards for Research in Forecasting (Editorial)," General Economics and Teaching 0502054, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    publication; review; peers; fairness;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A - General Economics and Teaching

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502058. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.