REVIEWER AND EDITOR DECISION MAKING IN THE JOURNAL REVIEW PROCESS
研究分析了823篇投稿至《应用心理学杂志》的论文，发现审稿人和编辑在评审中更关注研究设计、构念操作化和理论发展，且审稿人评价的差异会影响编辑决策，但未发现基于性别或机构的偏袒。
Much research on the journal review process has found little consistency among reviewers' evaluations of manuscripts. We propose theoretical explanations for these differences related to gatekeeping and particularism phenomena and generate hypotheses regarding influences on initial editorial decisions. A sample of 823 original submissions to the Journal of Applied Psychology were analyzed with respect to author and paper characteristics, reviewer evaluations, and editor decisions. Support was found for gatekeeping functions in that reviewers and editors appeared to pay particular attention to the adequacy of the research design, operationalization of constructs, and theoretical development. Evidence was found for variable gatekeeping in reviewer evaluations, and the impact of reviewer evaluations on editor decisions was moderated by this variability across reviewers. Little evidence was found for social particularism (i.e., favoritism based on gender or affiliation) or content particularism (preference for or against particular research settings or methodologies).