Date of this Version
A review of editorial policies of leading journals and of research relevant to scientific journals revealed conflicts between 'science' and 'scientists.' Owing to these conflicts, papers are often weak on objectivity and replicability. Furthermore, papers often fall short on importance, competence, intelligibility, or efficiency. Suggestions were made for editorial policies such as: (1) structured guidelines for referees, (2) open peer review, (3) blind reviews, and (4) full disclosure of data and method. Of major importance, an author's "Note to Referees" (describing the hypotheses and design, but not the results) was suggested to improve the objectivity of the ratings of importance and competence. Also, recommendations are made to authors for improving contributions to science (such as the use of multiple hypotheses) and for promoting their careers (such as using complex methods and obtuse writing).
Armstrong, J. S. (1982). Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/marketing_papers/113
Date Posted: 15 June 2007
This document has been peer reviewed.