Quality and Peer Review of Research: An Adjudicating Role for Editors
Newton, Douglas P
Accountability in research 2010 May; 17(3): 130-45
Peer review gives research a stamp of approval, but the reviews themselves can be flawed. This is potentially serious for the writer, the journal, and journal user. This study describes shortcomings of the peer review process and condenses them into an explanatory framework involving situational, personal, social, and ethical factors. Some proposals to improve matters are impractical and may make them worse. Some data is offered which illustrates the problem and suggests a potential solution. Informed editors who avoid mechanical approaches engage cautiously and critically with reviews and guard against bias, even in themselves, could make a significant difference.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors Schroter, Sara; Tite, Leanne; Hutchings, Andrew; Black, Nick (2006-01-18)
Isohanni, Matti (2005-09)