Peer review is a gatekeeper, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but it has been criticized in relation to traditional psychological research criteria of reliability, validity, generalizability, and potential biases. Despite a considerable literature, there is surprisingly little sound peer-review research examining these criteria or…

Peer review is valued in higher education, but also widely criticized in terms of potential biases, particularly gender. We evaluate gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications, extending Bornmann, Mutz, and Daniel's meta-analyses that reported small gender differences in favor of men (d = 0.04), but a substantial heterogeneity in…

Agreement between two independent reviews of each of 278 manuscripts was compared on an overall recommendation and on specific rating items. Agreement between reviewers on separate dimensions, the unweighted sum of the dimensions, and various weighted sums was no better than that for the overall recommendation itself. (SLD)

The peer review process used to select manuscripts for publication in academic journals is important to the individual researcher and the scientific community, but it has been the topic of little research. This article analyzes the reviewers overall recommendation, ratings on specific subscales, and written critiques. Reviewer reliability is…

An Australian study and a Canadian study evaluated the ability of significant others to infer multiple dimensions of self-concept of university students accurately. Subjects were 151 Australian and 941 Canadian university students. Four factor analyses (self- and other-responses by Australians and Canadians) all clearly identified the 13 factors…

Self/other agreement between self-concept ratings by the individual and self-concepts inferred by significant others is of theoretical and practical importance, but the review by J. S. Shrauger and T. J. Schoeneman (1979) found no evidence for such agreement. In the present investigation, the Self Description Questionnaire III (SDQIII) was…

Evaluated the peer review process used to fund Australian university research across all disciplines, relating peer reviews of 2,989 research proposals (6,233 external reviewers) to characteristics of the researchers and of reviewers. Findings lead to suggestions for improvement, especially that researcher-nominated reviewers should not be used…