--- 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