- -

A Noise Audit of the Peer Review of a Scientific Article: a WPOM Journal Case Study

RiuNet: Institutional repository of the Polithecnic University of Valencia

Share/Send to

Cited by

Statistics

  • Estadisticas de Uso

A Noise Audit of the Peer Review of a Scientific Article: a WPOM Journal Case Study

Show full item record

Bonavia, T.; Marin-Garcia, JA. (2023). A Noise Audit of the Peer Review of a Scientific Article: a WPOM Journal Case Study. WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management. 14(2):137-166. https://doi.org/10.4995/wpom.19631

Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: http://hdl.handle.net/10251/195697

Files in this item

Item Metadata

Title: A Noise Audit of the Peer Review of a Scientific Article: a WPOM Journal Case Study
Author: Bonavia, Tomas Marin-Garcia, Juan A.
UPV Unit: Universitat Politècnica de València. Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales - Escola Tècnica Superior d'Enginyers Industrials
Universitat Politècnica de València. Departamento de Organización de Empresas - Departament d'Organització d'Empreses
Issued date:
Abstract:
[EN] This study aims to be one of the first to analyse the noise level in the peer review process of scientific articles. Noise is defined as the undesired variability in the judgements made by professionals on the same ...[+]
Subjects: Noise audit , Decision-making process , Peer review , Evaluation of scientific journals , Research evaluation , Decision making , Decision noise
Copyrigths: Reconocimiento (by)
Source:
WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management. (eissn: 1989-9068 )
DOI: 10.4995/wpom.19631
Publisher:
Universitat Politècnica de València
Publisher version: https://doi.org/10.4995/wpom.19631
Type: Artículo

References

Álvarez, S.M.; Maheut, J. (2022). Protocol: Systematic literature review of the application of the mul-ticriteria decision analysis methodology in the evaluation of urban freight logistics initiatives. WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management, 13(2), 86-107. https://doi.org/10.4995/wpom.16780

Ariely, D. (2008). Las trampas del deseo. Cómo controlar los impulsos irracionales que nos llevan al error. Ed. Ariel.

Bedeian, A.G. (2004). Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management disci-pline. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(2), 198-216. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2004.13500489 [+]
Álvarez, S.M.; Maheut, J. (2022). Protocol: Systematic literature review of the application of the mul-ticriteria decision analysis methodology in the evaluation of urban freight logistics initiatives. WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management, 13(2), 86-107. https://doi.org/10.4995/wpom.16780

Ariely, D. (2008). Las trampas del deseo. Cómo controlar los impulsos irracionales que nos llevan al error. Ed. Ariel.

Bedeian, A.G. (2004). Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management disci-pline. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(2), 198-216. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2004.13500489

Belur, J.; Tompson, L.; Thornton, A.; Simon, M. (2021). Interrater reliability in systematic review meth-odology: Exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 837-865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799372

Benda, W.G.G.; Engels, T.C.E. (2011). The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science. International Jour-nal of Forecasting, 27(1), 166-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.03.003

Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 197-245. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112

Ernst, E., Saradeth, T., & Resch, K. L. (1993). Drawbacks of peer review. Nature, 363(6427), 296. https://doi.org/10.1038/363296a0

Fiske, D.W.; Fogg, L. (1990). But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper: Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. American Psychologist, 45(5), 591-598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.5.591

Hirst, A.; Altman, D.G. (2012). Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals. PLoS ONE, 7(4), e35621. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035621

LeBreton, J.M.; Senter, J.L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815-852. http://orm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/4/815 https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642

Kahneman, D. (2012). Pensar rápido, pensar despacio. Ed. Debate.

Kahneman D.; Rosenfield A.M.; Gandhi L.; Blaser T. (2016). Noise: How to overcome the high, hidden cost of inconsistent decision making. Harvard Business Review, 94(10), 38-46.

Kahneman, D.; Sibony, O.; Sunstein, C.R. (2021). Ruido. Un fallo en el juicio humano. Ed. Debate.

Krippendorff, K. (2011). Computing Krippendorff's alpha-reliability. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/43

Marin-Garcia, J.A.; Santandreu-Mascarell, C. (2015). What do we know about rubrics used in higher education? Intangible Capital, 11(1), 118-145. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.538

Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264-269, https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135

Rezaei, A.R.; Lovorn, M. (2010). Reliability and validity of rubrics for assessment through writing. As-sessing Writing, 15(1), 18-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2010.01.003

Voskuijl, O.F.; Van Sliedregt, T. (2002). Determinants of interrater reliability of job analysis: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(1), 52-62. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.18.1.52

Weller, A.C. (2001). Editorial peer review: its strengths and weaknesses. Ed. American Society for In-formation Science and Technology.

[-]

recommendations

 

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record