Quality and Peer Review of Research: An Adjudicating Role for Editors
Online Access
http://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Quality+and+peer+review+of+research:+an+adjudicating+role+for+editors.&title=Accountability+in+research+&volume=17&issue=3&date=2010-05&au=Newton,+Douglas+Phttps://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621003791945
http://hdl.handle.net/10822/1023151
Abstract
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.Date
2016-01-09Identifier
oai:repository.library.georgetown.edu:10822/1023151doi:10.1080/08989621003791945
Accountability in research 2010 May; 17(3): 130-45
http://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Quality+and+peer+review+of+research:+an+adjudicating+role+for+editors.&title=Accountability+in+research+&volume=17&issue=3&date=2010-05&au=Newton,+Douglas+P
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621003791945
http://hdl.handle.net/10822/1023151
DOI
10.1080/08989621003791945ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1080/08989621003791945