PEDIATRICS Vol. 84 No. 4 October 1989, pp. 647
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Student,
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Student,

OUTCOME-ORIENTED BIAS OF PEER REVIEWERS

Student

A draft of an article was sent to all the consulting editors of the Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, a periodical devoted to the work of followers of B. F. Skinner. One-third received a version interpreting the data as favorable to Skinner's ideas; one-third, a version concluding that the data opposed Skinner, and one-third, an ambiguous version. The method used was described in identical words in all versions.

[The author] reported that a majority of the editors receiving the pro-Skinner paper recommended publication, a majority of those receiving the anti-Skinner draft opposed publication. The third group split about 50-50. Even more striking, those getting the pro-Skinner interpretation rated the method as strictly scientific; those getting the critical version thought the methodology was sloppy, and the third group took a middle position. Remember that the method was described as identical for all three drafts.