Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors

J. Scott Armstrong ()

General Economics and Teaching from EconWPA

Abstract: A review of editorial policies of leading journals and of research relevant to scientific journals revealed conflicts between 'science' and 'scientists.” Owing to these conflicts, papers are often weak on objectivity and replicability. Furthermore, papers often fall short on importance, competence, intelligibility, or efficiency. Suggestions were made for editorial policies such as: (1) structured guidelines for referees, (2) open peer review, (3) blind reviews, and (4) full disclosure of data and method. Of major importance, an author's “Note to Referees” (describing the hypotheses and design, but not the results) was suggested to improve the objectivity of the ratings of importance and competence. Also, recommendations are made to authors for improving contributions to science (such as the use of multiple hypotheses) and for promoting their careers (such as using complex methods and obtuse writing).

Keywords: scientific journals; authors; research; editors (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: A (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2005-02-11
Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 23
View list of references View citations in EconPapers

Downloads: (external link)
http://129.3.20.41/eps/get/papers/0502/0502059.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502059

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in General Economics and Teaching from EconWPA
Series data maintained by EconWPA ().