Skip to main content
Article
Critiquing the Peer Review Process: Examining a Potential Dual-Role Conflict
American Psychologist
  • Daniel Houlihan, Minnesota State University - Mankato
  • Lisa Hofschulte, Minnesota State University - Mankato
  • Daniel Sachau, Minnesota State University - Mankato
  • Christi Patten, San Diego State University
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
12-1-1992
Abstract

Examined the frequency with which editors and associate editors published in their own journals. 136 editors or associate editors of psychology journals were surveyed. 61.6% had published at least 1 article in their journal since their appointment as editor or associate editor. Of those who did so, 41% of the editors and 20.5% of the associate editors reported that they may have been aided by their positions. The majority of Ss felt that it was appropriate to publish in their own journals. It is suggested that an established set of guidelines regarding peer review and manuscript submission might benefit all those involved in the publication process.

DOI
10.1037/0003-066X.47.12.1679
Citation Information
Houlihan, D., Hofschulte, L., Sachau, D., & Patten, C. (1992). Critiquing the Peer Review Process: Examining a Potential Dual Role Conflict. American Psychologist, 47(12), 1679-1681. doi. 10.1037/0003-066X.47.12.1679