The present article focuses on ways to make the peer-review and editorial process more efficient and more equitable for authors. In particular, we focus on the role of editors and action editors in the process of selecting and managing reviewers, balancing their own impressions of the manuscript with the reviewers' feedback, and rendering a fair and equitable editorial decision. We advance several recommendations to conserve reviewer time, provide authors with appropriate recourse when their papers are rejected unfairly, and expedite the processing of manuscripts that do not meet the standards of the journal to which they have been submitted.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychological Association.
(2006).
Summary report of journal operations: 2005.
American Psychologist,
61,
559–560.
2.
AndersonN.B.
(2006).
Editorial policies of the American Psychologist.
American Psychologist,
61,
1–9.
3.
ArnettJ.J.
(2005).
The vitality criterion: A new standard for publication in the Journal of Adolescent Research.
Journal of Adolescent Research,
20,
3–7.
4.
BakerD.
(2002).
The peer review process in science education journals.
Research in Science Education,
32,
171–180.
5.
BrownR.T.
(2004).
Editorial:
A general approach to publication in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology: From the process of preparing your manuscript to revisions and resubmissions.
Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
29,
1–5.
6.
CummingsP.RivaraF.P.
(2002).
Responding to reviewers' comments on submitted articles.
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine,
156,
105–107.
7.
DienerE.
(2006).
Editorial.
Perspectives on Psychological Science,
1,
1–4.
8.
EisenhartM.
(2002).
The paradox of peer review: Admitting too much or allowing too little?Research in Science Education,
32,
241–255.
9.
FosterR.L.
(2007).
Editorial: A primer on peer review.
Journal of Specialists in Pediatric Nursing,
13,
1–3.
10.
GueorguievaR.KrystalJ.H.
(2004).
Move over ANOVA: Progress in analyzing repeated-measures data and its reflection in papers published in the Archives of General Psychiatry.
Archives of General Psychiatry,
61,
310–317.
11.
HojatM.GonnellaJ.S.CalleighA.S.
(2003).
Impartial judgment by the “gatekeepers” of science: Fallibility and accountability in the peer review process.
Advances in Health Sciences Education,
8,
75–96.
KaplanD.
(2005).
How to fix peer review: Separating its two functions— improving manuscripts and judging their scientific merit—would help.
Journal of Child and Family Studies,
14,
321–323.
14.
KeileyM.K.MartinN.C.
(2005).
Survival analysis in family research.
Journal of Family Psychology,
19,
142–156.
15.
KumashiroK.
(2005).
Thinking collaboratively about the peer-review process for journal-article publication.
Harvard Educational Review,
75,
257–266.
16.
LevesqueR.J.R.
(2006).
Reporting empirical research on adolescence: Reflections on the appeal of coherence, purpose, and responsibility.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
35,
1–9.
RaelinJ.A.
(2008).
Refereeing the game of peer review.
Academy of Management Learning and Education,
7,
124–129.
19.
RothW.-M.
(2002).
Editorial power/authorial suffering.
Research in Science Education,
32,
215–240.
20.
RyanR.M.DeciE.L.
(2001).
On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.
Annual Review of Psychology,
52,
141–166.
