作者: STEPHEN W. GILLILAND , JOSÉ M. CORTINA
DOI: 10.1111/J.1744-6570.1997.TB00914.X
关键词:
摘要: Much research on the journal review process has found little consistency among reviewers' evaluations of manuscripts. We propose theoretical explanations for these differences related to gatekeeping and particularism phenomena generate hypotheses regarding influences initial editorial decisions. A sample 823 original submissions Journal Applied Psychology were analyzed with respect author paper characteristics, reviewer evaluations, editor Support was functions in that reviewers editors appeared pay particular attention adequacy design, operationalization constructs, development. Evidence variable impact decisions moderated by this variability across reviewers. Little evidence social (i.e., favoritism based gender or affiliation) content (preference against settings methodologies).