Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation

[1]  G Taubes.  Peer review in cyberspace. , 1994, Science.

[2]  Raymond Hubbard,et al.  Does the need for agreement among reviewers inhibit the publication controversial findings? , 1991, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[3]  B. Commoner.  Peering at peer review. , 1978, Hospital practice.

[4]  R. Blank.  The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review , 1991 .

[5]  G. Tappeiner,et al.  The Iron Law of Important Articles , 1991 .

[6]  Richard R. Lau,et al.  AN ANALYSIS OF THE ACCURACY OF “TRIAL HEAT” POLLS DURING THE 1992 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION , 1994 .

[7]  Thomas J. Zenisek,et al.  Manuscript characteristics influencing reviewers' decisions. , 1980 .

[8]  D. Weiss.  An Experiment in Publication: Advance Publication Review , 1989 .

[9]  R. Davidson.  Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials , 1986, Journal of general internal medicine.

[10]  S. Patterson,et al.  Monitoring Scholarly Journal Publication in Political Science: The Role of the APSR , 1990, PS: Political Science & Politics.

[11]  J. Scott Armstrong,et al.  Are null results becoming an endangered species in marketing? , 1992 .

[12]  N Wade,et al.  IQ and Heredity: Suspicion of Fraud Beclouds Classic Experiment. , 1976, Science.

[13]  D F Horrobin,et al.  The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. , 1990, JAMA.

[14]  R G Newcombe,et al.  Towards a reduction in publication bias. , 1987, British medical journal.

[15]  C. Begg,et al.  Publication bias : a problem in interpreting medical data , 1988 .

[16]  D. Lindsey.  The Scientific Publication System In Social Science , 1978 .

[17]  H. Rodman,et al.  Editors, manuscripts, and equal treatment , 1977 .

[18]  David S. Salsburg,et al.  The Religion of Statistics as Practiced in Medical Journals , 1985 .

[19]  J. Kupfersmid,et al.  An Author's Guide to Publishing Better Articles in Better Journals in the Behavioral Sciences , 1994 .

[20]  J. Scott Armstrong,et al.  Unintelligible Management Research and Academic Prestige , 1980 .

[21]  Juan Miguel Campanario,et al.  Commentary: On Influential Books and Journal Articles Initially Rejected Because of Negative Referees' Evaluations , 1995 .

[22]  H A F Dudley,et al.  Peer review at work , 1985 .

[23]  J. Scott Armstrong,et al.  University of Pennsylvania Scholarlycommons the Ombudsman: Management Folklore and Management Science: on Portfolio Planning, Escalation Bias and Such the Ombudsman: Management Folklore and Management Science: on Portfolio Planning, Escalation Bias and Such Management Folklore and Management Science , 2022 .

[24]  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin: Editorial Comment , 1975 .

[25]  B. Hibbitts.  Yesterday Once More: Skeptics, Scribes and the Demise of Law Reviews , 1996 .

[26]  T. Sterling.  Publication Decisions and their Possible Effects on Inferences Drawn from Tests of Significance—or Vice Versa , 1959 .

[27]  Bernard J. Hibbitts,et al.  Last Writes? Re-Assessing the Law Review in the Age of Cyberspace , 1996 .

[28]  T. Chalmers,et al.  Minimizing the three stages of publication bias. , 1990, JAMA.

[29]  M. Cho,et al.  The Quality of Drug Studies Published in Symposium Proceedings , 1996, Annals of Internal Medicine.