The present study centers on the distinction and achievement levels of Social Work’s editorial board and its supporting consulting editors. The findings suggest that the editorial board and consulting editors of Social Work studied during the 6-year time period (1990 to 1995) were un-distinguished in the area of scholarly productivity. The authors offer strategies for improving the quality of the peer reviewers for one of the profession’s most important journals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Epstein, W. (1990a). Confirmational response bias among social work journals. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15, 9-38.
2.
Epstein, W. (1990b). The obligations of intellectuals. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15, 244-247.
3.
Green, R., Hutchison, E., & Sar, B. (1992). Evaluating scholarly performance: The productivity of graduates of social work doctoral programs. Social Service Review, 66, 441-446.
4.
Lindsey, D. (1976). Distinction, achievement, and editorial board membership. American Psychologist, 31, 799-804.
5.
Lindsey, D. (1977). Participation and influence in publication review proceedings: A reply. American Psychologist, 32, 579-586.
6.
Lindsey, D. (1978a). The operation of professional journals in social work. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 5, 273-298.
7.
Lindsey, D. (1978b). The scientific publication system in social science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
Lindsey, D. (1992). Improving the quality of social work journals: From the editor ofChildren and Youth Services Review. Research on Social Work Practice, 2, 515-524.
9.
Lindsey, D., & Kirk, S. A. (1992). The role of social work journals in the development of a knowledge base for the profession. Social Service Review, 66, 295-310.
10.
MacRoberts, M., & MacRoberts, B. (1988a). Author motivation for not citing influences: A methodological note. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39, 432-433.
11.
MacRoberts, M., & MacRoberts, B. (1988b). Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Informational Science, 40, 342-349.
12.
National Association of Social Workers (NASW). (n.d.). Writing for the NASW Press: Information for authors. Washington, DC: Author.
13.
Pardeck, J. (1992). Are social work editorial boards competent: Some disquieting data with implications for social work practice. Research on Social Work Practice, 2, 487-496.
14.
Pardeck, J. (1994). An exploration of factors explaining the distinction and achievement levels of social work editorial boards. In R. Meinert, J. Pardeck, & W. Sullivan (Eds.), Issues in social work: A critical analysis (pp. 142-164). Westport, CT: Auburn House.
15.
Pardeck, J., Chung, W., & Murphy, J. (1995). An examination the scholarly productivity of social work editorial board members and guest reviewers. Research on Social Work Practice, 5, 223-234.
16.
Reamer, F. (1992). A response to Pardeck: From the editor-in-chief of theJournal of Social Work Education. Research on Social Work Practice, 2, 501-504.
