This two-part article reviews the current literature on journal peer review. Research on this subject has grown during the 1980s and 1990s, and has increased our awareness of both the myths and facts about peer review. Part 1 summarizes research findings on the participants in the system (the appointment mechanisms of editors and referees, and reviewer tasks and qualifications), and systemic problems of reliability, accuracy, and bias. Part 2 describes current research on how fraud, favoritism, and self-interest may affect the review system and on such policy issues as interference of particularistic criteria; connections among editors, authors, and referees; and double-blind reviewing. Although the literature indicates that peer review has many problems, the author concludes that it is difficult to imagine how science could advance without such a key quality control mechanism.

This two-part article reviews the current literature on journal peer review. Research on this subject has grown during the 1980s and 1990s and has increased our awareness of both the myths and facts about peer review. Part 1 summarizes research findings on the participants in the system (the appointment mechanisms of editors and referees, and reviewer tasks and qualifications) and systemic problems of reliability, accuracy, and bias. Part 2 describes current research on how fraud, favoritism, and self-interest may affect the review system and on such policy issues as interference of particularistic criteria; connections among editors, authors, and referees; and double-blind review. Although the literature indicates that peer review has many problems, the author concludes that it is difficult to imagine how science could advance without such a key quality control mechanism.

Metacognitive variables influence students' learning from science texts. This article deals with the comprehension monitoring abilities of secondary school science students, one of the areas of metacognition which has drawn considerable attention from researchers. The aims of the study are, in particular: (a) to know the extent to which comprehension is monitored by secondary science students as revealed by inconsistency detection in manipulated science texts, and (b) to identify the strategies used to regulate comprehension by the students who detect the inconsistencies. The results indicate that knowing that one understands or fails to understand science texts could be as important a problem as understanding proper. Besides, some incorrect regulatory strategies used by students who notice the inconsistencies in the texts are identified. These could also have an annoying influence in the regulatory behavior of students when studying regular science texts.

No abstract

No abstract