Interreferee agreement on some characteristics of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Abstract

rejection rates for most APA journals have exceeded 70% (see American Psychological Association, Council of Editors, 1972, 1973. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP) contributes to this high rate. Even so, each monthly issue contains approximately 18 articles, covering about ISO pages. The question is frequently raised whether the journal should be split or whether page allocations should be increased to accommodate more manuscripts. While such solutions would undoubtedly please some authors, they would not necessarily improve the situation for readers, many of whom have already had to terminate journal subscriptions because they were too expensive or presented too much information of marginal interest.An alternative solution is simply to increase the rejection rate until the number of submitted manuscripts declines. Such a brutal course implies some sound bases for discriminating among manuscripts that fall in the upper range of quality among the 90 or more submitted each month.Recently, several correspondents to the American Psychologist have commented on procedures for manuscript appraisal and proposed some improvements (see Bowen, Perloff, & Jacoby, 1972;Brackbill & Korten, 1970;Wolff, 1973). Among the modifications suggested by at least two of these is the adoption of a standard rating form for appraising specified attributes of manuscripts. In attempting to anticipate the feasibility of such a structured procedure, one may consider a variety of potential determinants, including at least the following: (a) the degree to which the "essential worth" of most manuscripts can be adequately represented by a 1 Requests for reprints should be sent to William A.

Peer review and competition in the Art Exhibition Game

“…Thus far, its inherent complexity and the restricted access to data have made it difficult to investigate peer review. Empirical studies have documented that the review process has low levels of inter-referee agreement (13,14), lacks reliability (15), and might be prone to biases (16,17). There is also an increasing number of studies based on computer simulations.…”

Editorial Comment: Agreement between reviewers of Journal of Economic Psychology submissions

“…First, reviewer agreement is quite high compared to previous studies carried out with other journals. Scott (1974) reported R 1 of 0.26 for final recommendations to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and (R 1 ) correlations ranging between 0.07 and 0.37 for ratings on different sub-measures of excellence. Hendrick (1977) reported R 1 = .21 for recommendations to the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.…”

“…Cicchetti, 1980;Hendrick, 1977;Scott, 1974). A high correlation between reviewers indicates that judgements of the quality and publishability of articles can be made with some reliability, a low correlation that they cannot (e.g.…”

La psicología social de la ciencia: una revisión bibliográfica de su estado actual

“…Pero no es éste el único nivel al que influye el proceso de publicación: la cantidad y calidad de las publicaciones tendrán incidencia en decisiones que conciernen a las políticas científicas nacionales, las concesiones de becas y financiación, el desarrollo de una disciplina, la evolución y reputación de departamentos, laboratorios e líneas de investigación, la carrera de los/as propios/as científicos/as, primas y méritos en el salario, y la evolución de revistas y publicaciones (Gottfredson, 1978;Scott, 1974;Cox et al, 1977;Endler et al, 1978;Roose and Anderson, 1970;Shadish et al, 1995;Cole & Cole, 1973Endler, 1970).…”

“…Un segundo punto que se cuestiona es la fiabilidad de los juicios de las peer review: salvo algunas excepciones (Crandall, 1978a;Scarr & Weber, 1978;Whitehurst, 1984), las correlaciones entre los evaluadores son muy bajas (Bowen, Perloff & Jacoby, 1972;Ciccheti, 1980Ciccheti, , 1982Cicchetti & Eron, 1979;Gottfredson, 1978;Hendrick, 1977;Mahoney, 1977;McCartney, 1973;McReynolds, 1971;Scott, 1974;Inglefinger, 1974;Watkins, 1979), tanto que no parecen ser mejores que las que se darían al azar (Cole, Cole & Simon, 1981). Las diferencias incluso son considerables entre campos científicos (Cole & Cole, 1979), entre las revistas de un campo (Ciccheti, 1980;Hendrick, 1977) y en los procedimientos de revisión (Gottfredson, 1978).…”