Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author’s Formula

Armstrong, J. Scott (1982) Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author’s Formula. [Journal (Paginated)]

Full text available as:



Recently I completed a review of the empirical research on scientific journals (Armstrong 1982). This review provided evidence for an “author’s formula,” a set of rules that authors can use to increase the likelihood and speed of acceptance of their manuscripts. Authors should: (1) not pick an important problem, (2) not challenge existing beliefs, (3) not obtain surprising results, (4) not use simple methods, (5) not provide full disclosure, and (6) not write clearly. Peters & Ceci (P&C) are obviously ignorant of the author’s formula. In their extension of the Kosinski study (Ross 1979; 1980), they broke most of the rules.

Item Type:Journal (Paginated)
Subjects:Psychology > Behavioral Analysis
ID Code:5179
Deposited By: Armstrong, J. Scott
Deposited On:25 Sep 2006
Last Modified:11 Mar 2011 08:56

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

Armstrong, J.S. (1980a), “Advocacy as a scientific strategy: The mitroff myth,” Academy of Management Review, 5, 509-11.

Armstrong, J.S. (1980b), “Unintelligible management research and academic prestige,” Interfaces, 10, 80-86.

Armstrong, J.S. (1979), “Advocacy and objectivity in science,” Management Science 25, 423-28.

Coe, R. K. and I. Weinstock (1967), “Editorial policies of major economic journals,” Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 7, 37-43.

Goodstein, L. D. and K. L. Brazis (1970), “Credibility of psychologists: An empirical study,” Psychological Reports, 27, 835-38.

Hawkins, R. G., L. S. Ritter and I. Walter (1973), “What economists think of their journals,” Journal of Political Economy, 81, 1017-32.

Kerr, S., J. Tolliver and D. Petree (1977), “Manuscript characteristics which influence acceptance for management and social science journals,” Academy of Management Journal, 20, 132-41.

Mahoney, M. J. (1979), “Psychology of the scientist: An evaluative review,” Social Studies of Science, 9, 349-75.

Mahoney, M. J. (1977), “Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system,” Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 161-75.

Mahoney, M. J. , A. E. Kazdin and M. Kenigsberg (1978), “Getting published: The effects of selfcitation

and institutional affiliation,” Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2, 69-70.

Mahoney, M. J. and T. P. Kimper (1976), “From ethics to logic: A survey of scientists,” Scientist as Subject, M. J. Mahoney, ed. 187-93. Cambridge, MA:Ballinger.

Peters, D. P. and S. J. Ceci (1982), “Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again,” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 2, 187-195.

Siegfried, J. J. (1970), “A first lesson in econometrics,” Journal of Political Economy, 78, 1378-79.

Szasz, T. (1973), The Second Sin, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Trafford, A. (1981), “Behind the scandals in science labs,” U. S. News and World Report, March 2, p. 54.

Webster, E. C. (1964), Decision Making in the Employment Interview. Montreal: Eagle.

Wolin, L. (1962), “Responsibility for raw data,” American Psychologist, 17, 657-58.


Repository Staff Only: item control page