Peer Review-Prozess hat eine geringe prognostische Qualität
Diese Seite wurde seit 10 Jahren inhaltlich nicht mehr aktualisiert.
Unter Umständen ist sie nicht mehr aktuell.
Bemerkungen
Low prognostic quality: Assessment of promotion decisions in three prestigious management departments estimated an error rate of 60 % (Starbuck 2015). Reviewers’ ratings of manuscript quality correlated only 0.24 with later citations (Gottfredson 1978). Many articles published in “top" journals are rarely cited, which means that the reviewers do not judge the future impact in a satisfactory way (Hudson 2013; Laband 2013). This is the reason why the rating of a journal should not be used as an indicator of quality of a single article published in the respective journal (Baum 2011; Kieser 2012).
1 Erwähnungen 
- Incentives and Performance - Governance of Research Organizations (Isabell M. Welpe, Jutta Wollersheim, Stefanie Ringelhan, Margit Osterloh) (2015)
- 19. Double-Blind Peer Review - How to Slaughter a Sacred Cow (Margit Osterloh, Alfred Kieser)
- 19. Double-Blind Peer Review - How to Slaughter a Sacred Cow (Margit Osterloh, Alfred Kieser)
Biblionetz-History