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

Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 3, pp. 63-84, 1997

33 Pages Posted: 15 Jan 2005 Last revised: 24 Feb 2015

See all articles by J. Scott Armstrong

J. Scott Armstrong

University of Pennsylvania - Marketing Department

Abstract

I reviewed the published empirical evidence concerning journal peer review, which consisted of 68 papers, all but three published since 1975. Peer review improves quality, but its use to screen papers has met with limited success. Current procedures to assure quality and fairness seem to discourage scientific advancement, especially important innovations, because findings that conflict with current beliefs are often judged to have defects. Editors can use procedures to encourage the publication of papers with innovative findings such as invited papers, early-acceptance procedures, author nominations of reviewers, results-blind reviews, structured rating sheets, open peer review, and, in particular, electronic publication. Some journals are currently using these procedures. The basic principle behind the proposals is to change the decision from whether to publish a paper to how to publish it.

Keywords: Peer reviews, Control, Fairness, and Innovation

Suggested Citation

Armstrong, J. Scott, Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 3, pp. 63-84, 1997. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=648767

J. Scott Armstrong (Contact Author)

University of Pennsylvania - Marketing Department ( email )

700 Jon M. Huntsman Hall
3730 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6340
United States
215-898-5087 (Phone)
215-898-2534 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/people/faculty/armstrong.cfm

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
139
Abstract Views
933
rank
209,925
PlumX Metrics