Supporting robust, rigorous, and reliable reviewing as the cornerstone of our profession: Introducing a competency framework for peer review

Author:

Köhler Tine,González-Morales M. Gloria,Banks George C.,O’Boyle Ernest H.ORCID,Allen Joseph A.,Sinha Ruchi,Woo Sang Eun,Gulick Lisa M. V.

Abstract

AbstractPeer review is a critical component toward facilitating a robust science in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Peer review exists beyond academic publishing in organizations, university departments, grant agencies, classrooms, and many more work contexts. Reviewers are responsible for judging the quality of research conducted and submitted for evaluation. Furthermore, they are responsible for treating authors and their work with respect, in a supportive and developmental manner. Given its central role in our profession, it is curious that we do not have formalized review guidelines or standards and that most of us never receive formal training in peer reviewing. To support this endeavor, we are proposing a competency framework for peer review. The purpose of the competency framework is to provide a definition of excellent peer reviewing and guidelines to reviewers for which types of behaviors will lead to good peer reviews. By defining these competencies, we create clarity around expectations for peer review, standards for good peer reviews, and opportunities for training the behaviors required to deliver good peer reviews. We further discuss how the competency framework can be used to improve peer reviewing and suggest additional steps forward that involve suggestions for how stakeholders can get involved in fostering high-quality peer reviewing.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Applied Psychology,Social Psychology

Reference53 articles.

1. Can Results-Free Review Reduce Publication Bias? The Results and Implications of a Pilot Study

2. Meta-Analysis and the Development of Knowledge

3. Editorial: Evidence on Questionable Research Practices: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

4. Reliability of reviews for the American Psychologist: A biostatistical assessment of the data.

5. Smithsonian. (2019). The true story of the case Ruth Bader Ginsburg argues in ‘On the basis of sex’. Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-case-center-basis-sex-180971110/.

Cited by 43 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Reporting checklists in neuroimaging: promoting transparency, replicability, and reproducibility;Neuropsychopharmacology;2024-09-06

2. Where are all the Low-Risk R&Rs?;Group & Organization Management;2024-08-23

3. The benefits of preregistration and Registered Reports;Evidence-Based Toxicology;2024-07-22

4. Unethical Peer Review;Accounting Historians Journal;2024-05-24

5. Revise and resubmit? Peer reviewing business historical research;Business History;2024-03-14

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3