Cookies

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse this repository, you give consent for essential cookies to be used. You can read more about our Privacy and Cookie Policy.


Durham Research Online
You are in:

Quality and peer review of research : an adjudicating role for editors.

Newton, D. P. (2010) 'Quality and peer review of research : an adjudicating role for editors.', Accountability in research., 17 (3). pp. 130-145.

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.

Item Type:Article
Keywords:Editor engagement, Peer review shortcomings.
Full text:(AM) Accepted Manuscript
Download PDF
(175Kb)
Status:Peer-reviewed
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
Date accepted:No date available
Date deposited:01 March 2012
Date of first online publication:May 2010
Date first made open access:No date available

Save or Share this output

Export:
Export
Look up in GoogleScholar