June 22, 2013

Does 'Peer Reviewed' Mean Only Peers Get Reviewed?

After being recently published in prestigious psychology journals, papers from prestigious institutions were resubmitted to those same journals under the names of fictitious authors with fictitious, non-prestigious bylines. 25% of the papers were caught at submission by a small minority of editors and reviewers. The great majority of the remainder, which passed through the regular refereeing process, were rejected for publication. (HT: Instapundit. See also yours truly at ATH.)

(Senior author Stephen A. Ceci studies, among other things, sex differences in cognitive performance.)

...continues surfing for info & links...

Oh, good grief! Speaking of shoddy review practices, Reynolds neglected to note, and possibly to notice, that the Ceci-Peters article was published over thirty years ago. Given contemporary beliefs like Global Warming, No Global Warming, Creationism, Diversity, Blastocysts Are People, etc etc etc, the overall situation might have deteriorated since then (notwithstanding cyber-resources which have become available to check for plagiarism).

Here is a (relatively) recent examination.

No comments: