---
abstract: 'As Cicchetti indicates, agreement among reviewers is not high. This conclusion is empirically supported by Fiske and Fogg (1990), who reported that two independent reviews of the same papers typically had no critical point in common. Does this imply that journal editors should strive for a high level of reviewer consensus as a criterion for publication? Prior research suggests that such a requirement would inhibit the publication of papers with controversial findings. We summarize this research and report on a survey of editors.'
altloc:
  - http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/ideas/pdf/Armstrong2/agree.pdf
chapter: ~
commentary: ~
commref: '“The reliability of peer review for manuscripts and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14 (1991), 119-186'
confdates: ~
conference: ~
confloc: ~
contact_email: ~
creators_id: []
creators_name:
  - family: Armstrong
    given: J. Scott
    honourific: ''
    lineage: ''
  - family: Hubbard
    given: Raymond
    honourific: ''
    lineage: ''
date: 1991
date_type: published
datestamp: 2006-09-25
department: ~
dir: disk0/00/00/51/82
edit_lock_since: ~
edit_lock_until: ~
edit_lock_user: ~
editors_id: []
editors_name: []
eprint_status: archive
eprintid: 5182
fileinfo: /style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png;/5182/1/does_the_need_for_agreement.pdf
full_text_status: public
importid: ~
institution: ~
isbn: ~
ispublished: pub
issn: ~
item_issues_comment: []
item_issues_count: 0
item_issues_description: []
item_issues_id: []
item_issues_reported_by: []
item_issues_resolved_by: []
item_issues_status: []
item_issues_timestamp: []
item_issues_type: []
keywords: ~
lastmod: 2011-03-11 08:56:37
latitude: ~
longitude: ~
metadata_visibility: show
note: ~
number: ~
pagerange: 136-137
pubdom: FALSE
publication: Behavioral and Brain Sciences
publisher: ~
refereed: FALSE
referencetext: |-
  Armstrong, J. S. (1982a), “Barriers to scientific contributions: The author’s formula,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 197-199.
  
  Armstrong, J. S. (1982b), “Is review by peers as fair as it appears?” Interfaces, 12, 62-74.
  
  Armstrong, J. S. (1982c), “Research on scientific journals: Implications for editors and authors,” Journal of Forecasting, 1, 83-104.
  
  Fisher, A. (1989), “Seeing atoms,” Popular Science, 102-07.
  Fiske, D. W. and L. Fogg (1990), “But the reviewers are aking different criticisms of my paper! Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments,” American Psychologist, 45, 591-598.
  
  Horrobin, D. F. (1990), “The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1438-1441.
  
  Mahoney, M. J. (1977), “Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system,” Cognitive Therapy Research hh, 1, 161- 175.
  
  McNutt, R. A., A. T. Evans, R. H. Fletcher, and S. W. Fletcher (1990), “The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 137-176.
relation_type: []
relation_uri: []
reportno: ~
rev_number: 12
series: ~
source: ~
status_changed: 2007-09-12 17:07:37
subjects:
  - behav-neuro-sci
succeeds: ~
suggestions: ~
sword_depositor: ~
sword_slug: ~
thesistype: ~
title: Does the Need for Agreement Among Reviewers Inhibit the Publication of Controversial Findings?
type: journalp
userid: 214
volume: 14
<script src='https://archive-bar.soton.ac.uk/archive-bar.js'></script>
<script src='https://archive-bar.soton.ac.uk/google-analytics.js'></script>