A growing interest in and concern about the adequacy and fairness of modern peer-review practices in publication and funding are apparent across a wide range of scientific disciplines. Although questions about reliability, accountability, reviewer bias, and competence have been raised, there has been very little direct research on these variables.The present investigation was an attempt to study the peer-review process directly, in the natural setting of actual journal referee evaluations of submitted manuscripts. As test materials we selected 12 already published research articles by investigators from prestigious and highly productive American psychology departments, one article from each of 12 highly regarded and widely read American psychology journals with high rejection rates (80%) and nonblind refereeing practices.With fictitious names and institutions substituted for the original ones (e.g., Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential), the altered manuscripts were formally resubmitted to the journals that had originally refereed and published them 18 to 32 months earlier. Of the sample of 38 editors and reviewers, only three (8%) detected the resubmissions. This result allowed nine of the 12 articles to continue through the review process to receive an actual evaluation: eight of the nine were rejected. Sixteen of the 18 referees (89%) recommended against publication and the editors concurred. The grounds for rejection were in many cases described as “serious methodological flaws.” A number of possible interpretations of these data are reviewed and evaluated.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0140525X00011183

Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again

Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings.

27 p. ; Includes bibliographical references (pp. 25-27). ; "January 2004."; The authors would like to thank the research contribution made by our research associate Amer Mohamed who was responsible for assisting us in the coding of all of the articles and citations for this study.

/pdf/meta-review-of-knowledge-management-and-intellectual-capital-6infezorkp.pdf

Meta-review of knowledge management and intellectual capital literature: citation impact and research productivity rankings

Research productivity in psychology based on publication in the journals of the American Psychological Association.

Citations to published work, personality, and demographic characteristics were examined in a sample of male and female academic psychologists. A large sex difference was found in citations with men receiving significantly more recognition. Reputational rankings of graduate school and current institution were significantly related to citations, as were components of achievement motivation. Mastery and work needs were positively related to citations while competitiveness was negatively associated with the criterion. A model of attainment in psychology is proposed and possible explanations for the differential recognition of women are explored.

Viola Catt

Papers

Productivity Ratings of Graduate Programs in Psychology Based on Publication in the Journals of the American Psychological Association.

"Productivity in publication and the quality of psychology departments": Reply to Schaeffer and Sulyma.