IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors

Listed author(s):
  • JS Armstrong

    (The Wharton School)

A review of editorial policies of leading journals and of research relevant to scientific journals revealed conflicts between 'science' and 'scientists.” Owing to these conflicts, papers are often weak on objectivity and replicability. Furthermore, papers often fall short on importance, competence, intelligibility, or efficiency. Suggestions were made for editorial policies such as: (1) structured guidelines for referees, (2) open peer review, (3) blind reviews, and (4) full disclosure of data and method. Of major importance, an author's “Note to Referees” (describing the hypotheses and design, but not the results) was suggested to improve the objectivity of the ratings of importance and competence. Also, recommendations are made to authors for improving contributions to science (such as the use of multiple hypotheses) and for promoting their careers (such as using complex methods and obtuse writing).

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:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by EconWPA in its series General Economics and Teaching with number 0502059.

in new window

Length: 23 pages
Date of creation: 11 Feb 2005
Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502059
Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 23
Contact details of provider: Web page:

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.:

in new window

  1. William R. King & Ralph H. Kilmann & Kenneth Sochats, 1978. "Designing Scientific Journals: Issues and Survey Results," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(7), pages 774-784, March.
  2. J. Scott Armstrong, 1979. "Advocacy and Objectivity in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 423-428, May.
  3. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author’s Formula," General Economics and Teaching 0502057, EconWPA.
  4. Moravcsik, Michael J., 1974. "A refinement of extrinsic criteria for scientific choice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 88-97, April.
  5. Russell L. Ackoff, 1967. "Management Misinformation Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(4), pages 147-156, December.
  6. Siegfried, John J, 1970. "A First Lesson in Econometrics," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(6), pages 1378-1379, Nov.-Dec..
  7. Ian I. Mitroff, 1972. "The Myth of Objectivity OR Why Science Needs a New Psychology of Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(10), pages 613-618, June.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502059. 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.