Critiquing the Peer Review Process: Examining a Potential Dual-Role Conflict
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
12-1992
Abstract
Examined the frequency with which editors and associate editors published in their own journals. 136 editors or associate editors of psychology journals were surveyed. 61.6% had published at least 1 article in their journal since their appointment as editor or associate editor. Of those who did so, 41% of the editors and 20.5% of the associate editors reported that they may have been aided by their positions. The majority of Ss felt that it was appropriate to publish in their own journals. It is suggested that an established set of guidelines regarding peer review and manuscript submission might benefit all those involved in the publication process.
Department
Psychology
Publication Title
American Psychologist
Recommended Citation
Houlihan, D., Hofschulte, L., Sachau, D., & Patten, C. (1992). Critiquing the Peer Review Process: Examining a Potential Dual Role Conflict. American Psychologist, 47(12), 1679-1681. doi. 10.1037/0003-066X.47.12.1679
DOI
10.1037/0003-066X.47.12.1679
Link to Publisher Version (DOI)
Publisher's Copyright and Source
Copyright © 1992 American Psychological Association. Article published by the American Psychological Association in American Psychologist, volume 47, issue number 12, December 1992, pages 1679-1681. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.12.1679
