This blog is to help me remember stories and papers and provide ideas for students taking the Behavioral and Experimental class. It will focus on behavioral and experimental economics, with the occasional gender story.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Here is a really fun experiment, old though, and, as so often with fun experiments, run by psychologists:
"Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again" Douglas P. Peters and Stephen J. Ceci June Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Volume5, Issue02, June 1982 pp 187-195 The abstract reads: "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."
I wonder if that was one motivator for the double blind refereeing at the AER... I guess Google made all that pretty meaningless...