Newton, D. P. (2010) 'Quality and peer review of research : an adjudicating role for editors.', Accountability in research., 17 (3). pp. 130-145.
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.
|Keywords:||Editor engagement, Peer review shortcomings.|
|Full text:||PDF - Accepted Version (175Kb)|
|Publisher Web site:||http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621003791945|
|Publisher statement:||This is an electronic version of an article published in Newton, D. P. (2010) 'Quality and peer review of research : an adjudicating role for editors.', Accountability in research., 17 (3). pp. 130-145. Accountability in research is available online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/openurl?genre=article&issn=0898-9621&volume=17&issue=3&spage=130|
|Record Created:||13 May 2010 13:20|
|Last Modified:||01 Mar 2012 17:23|
|Social bookmarking:||Export: EndNote, Zotero | BibTex|
|Usage statistics||Look up in GoogleScholar | Find in a UK Library|