Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Science Communication
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by CAMPANARIO, J. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today—Part 1

JUAN MIGUEL CAMPANARIO

University of Alcalá

This two-part article reviews the current literature on journal peer review. Research on this subject has grown during the 1980s and 1990s, and has increased our awareness of both the myths and facts about peer review. Part 1 summarizes research findings on the participants in the system (the appointment mechanisms of editors and referees, and reviewer tasks and qualifications), and systemic problems of reliability, accuracy, and bias. Part 2 describes current research on how fraud, favoritism, and self-interest may affect the review system and on such policy issues as interference of particularistic criteria; connections among editors, authors, and referees; and double-blind reviewing. Although the literature indicates that peer review has many problems, the author concludes that it is difficult to imagine how science could advance without such a key quality control mechanism.

Science Communication, Vol. 19, No. 3, 181-211 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/1075547098019003002
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Organizational Research MethodsHome page
A. G. Bedeian, D. D. Van Fleet, and H. H. Hyman III
``Circle the Wagons and Defend the Faith'': Slicing and Dicing the Data
Organizational Research Methods, April 1, 2009; 12(2): 276 - 295.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHERHome page
B. Graue
The Transformative Power of Reviewing
Educational Researcher, December 1, 2006; 35(9): 36 - 41.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of SociologyHome page
T. J. Phelan
Bibliometrics and the evaluation of Australian sociology
Journal of Sociology, January 1, 2000; 36(3): 345 - 363.
[Abstract] [PDF]