1988
DOI: 10.1037/0003-066x.43.8.635
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improving what is published: A model in search of an editor.

Abstract: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joel Kupfersmid, 1560 Callander, Hudson, OH 44236. I The three areas of dissatisfaction are not intended to be an exhaustive list. Rather, these issues represent areas where dissatisfaction can be reduced if the proposed model is instituted.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
60
0

Year Published

1994
1994
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 121 publications
(61 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
1
60
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Whereas the areas presented above pertain to the content of manuscripts and the research on which manuscripts report, there are also criteria and reasons that refer to the ''reputation or institutional affiliation of the authors.'' The criteria and reasons here address the scholarship demonstrated in the manuscript and the reputation of the authors in their research areas (see here also Kupfersmid 1988). 9.…”
Section: Examples Of Referees' Commentsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Whereas the areas presented above pertain to the content of manuscripts and the research on which manuscripts report, there are also criteria and reasons that refer to the ''reputation or institutional affiliation of the authors.'' The criteria and reasons here address the scholarship demonstrated in the manuscript and the reputation of the authors in their research areas (see here also Kupfersmid 1988). 9.…”
Section: Examples Of Referees' Commentsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The ROC values were below, or just above, 0.60 respectively. These data raise the question of whether the ''file drawer effect'' (Kupfersmid, 1988;Rosenthal, 1979) compromises the available RRASOR and Static-99 data. Discouraged by modest or poor results, some researchers never submit their data for publication.…”
Section: Maximizing Specificitymentioning
confidence: 89%
“…In most journals, a successful application of existing models, methodologies, and instruments is required for paper acceptance. Editors seem reluctant to accept papers that invalidate well-established principles, and reviewers tend to attribute failures to poor study designs [14,23]. Poor study design, however, is not the only source of misfit of well-established research models and instruments.…”
Section: Problem Statementmentioning
confidence: 97%