Editorial overkill

Abstract

Mandatory revision in accordance with reviewers’ comments has apparently become the norm for articles published in certain quarters. Of the regular articles published in the 9-year period 1972–1980 by a sample of highly reputable journals (British Journal of Psychology, Econometrica, and the Journal of the American Statistical Association), 68% to 99% had to be revised subsequent to submission. These high rates of coerced revision place enormous power in the hands of reviewers to enforce conformity to their views while largely escaping responsibility, or accountability, for their actions. This situation is conducive to a variety of abuses that detract from the efficiency of the peer-review system and therefore constitute editorial overkill. These abuses are extensively discussed and illustrated.

References

  1. Barber, B. Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery. Science, 1961, 134, 596–602.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bradley, J. V. Robustness? British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1978, 31, 144–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bradley, J. V. Pernicious publication practices. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1981, 18, 31–34.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Council of Editors. Summary report of journal operations: 1980. American Psychologist, 1981, 36, 617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fienberg, S. E., & Duncan, G. Report of the editors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 979, 74 (No. 366, Part 1), v-vi.

  6. Iltis, H. Life of Mendel. New York: Hafner, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mahoney, M. J. Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1977, 1, 161–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Merton, R. K. The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  9. More, L. T. Isaac Newton. New York: Scribner’s, 1934.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ziman, J. What is science? In E. D. Klemke, R. Hollinger, & A. D. Kline (Eds.), Introductory readings in the philosophy of science. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James V. Bradley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bradley, J.V. Editorial overkill. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 19, 271–274 (1982). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330255

Download citation

Keywords

  • Copy Editor
  • Peer Review System
  • Reputable Journal
  • Unobtrusive Measure
  • Anonymous Copy