Authors need to view reviewers’ comments not as judgments about the value of their work, but as good data about potential readers of their articles. The editorial review process does have deficiencies, the most serious being that reviewers should decide what articles warrant publication. “Peer review” should mean that reviewers and authors are indeed peers. However, editors typically act as if reviewers have more competence and more valid opinions than authors, and as if they themselves have the wisdom and knowledge to impose constraints on manuscripts. Empirical evidence indicates that editorial decisions incorporate bias and randomness. However, authors need to persuade potential readers to read their articles and that authors’ ideas and theories are plausible and useful. Authors must adapt their manuscripts to readers’ perceptual frameworks. Nevertheless, authors should remember that editors and reviewers are not superior and that the ultimate decisions about what is right must come from inside themselves.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baumeister, R. E. (1990, fall). Dear journal editor, it’s me again: Sample cover letter for journal manuscript resubmissions. Dialogue, 5, 16-16.
2.
Bedeian, A. G. (1996a). Improving the journal review process: The question of ghostwriting. American Psychologist, 51, 1189-1189.
3.
Bedeian, A. G. (1996b). Thoughts on the making and remaking of the management discipline. Journal of Management Inquiry, 5, 311-318.
4.
Bowen, D. D., Perloff, R., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Improving manuscript evaluation procedures. American Psychologist, 27, 221-225.
5.
Cicchetti, D. (1980). Reliability of reviews for the American Psychologist. American Psychologist, 35, 300-303.
6.
Cicchetti, D. V. (1991). The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 14, 119-186.
7.
Davis, M. S. (1971). That’s interesting! Toward a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of Social Science, 1, 309-344.
8.
Ellison, G. (2002). The slowdown of the economics publishing process. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 947-993.
9.
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
10.
Gardner, W. P. (1995). On the reliability of sequential data: Measurement, meaning, and correction. In J. M. Gottman (Ed.), The analysis of change(pp. 341-359). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Gottfredson, S. D. (1977). Scientific quality and peer-group consensus (Doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 1950B. (UMI No. 77-19).
12.
Gottfredson, S. D. (1978). Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments. American Psychologist, 33(10), 920-934.
13.
Gottfredson, D. M.,& Gottfredson, S. D. (1982). Criminal justice and (reviewer) behavior: How to get papers published. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 9(3), 259-272.
14.
Harnad, S. (1986). Policing the paper chase. Nature, 322, 24-25.
15.
Hedberg, B. L. T., Nystrom, P. C., & Starbuck, W. H. (1976). Camping on seesaws: Prescriptions for a self-designing organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 41-65.
16.
Holbrook, M. B. (1986, July). A note on sadomasochism in the review process: I hate when that happens. Journal of Marketing, 50, 104-106.
17.
Horrobin, D. F. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1438-1441.
18.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions(2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
Landis, J., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
20.
Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 1, 161-175.
21.
Mahoney, M. J. (1979). Psychology of the scientist: An evaluative review. Social Studies of Science, 9(3), 349-375.
22.
Mahoney, M. J., Kazdin, A. E., & Kenigsberg, M. (1978). Getting published. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 2, 69-70.
23.
Meehl, P. E. (1991). Selected philosophical and methodological papers. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
24.
Normann, R. (1971). Organizational innovativeness: Product variation and reorientation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 203-215.
25.
Nylenna, M., Riis, P.,& Karlsson, Y. (1994). Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts: Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 149-151.
26.
Peter, J. P., & Olson, J. C. (1983, fall). Is science marketing? Journal of Marketing, 47, 111-125.
27.
Peters, D. P.,& Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 5, 187-255.
28.
Rothwell, P. M., & Martyn, C. N. (2000). Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain, 123, 1964-1969.
29.
Scott, W. A. (1974). Interreferee agreement on some characteristics of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. American Psychologist, 29, 698-702.
30.
Webster, J., & Starbuck, W. H. (1988). Theory building in industrial and organizational psychology. In C. L. Cooper, & I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology 1988(pp. 93-138). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
31.
Wolff, W. M. (1970). A study of criteria for journal manuscripts. American Psychologist, 25, 636-639.
