@article{4396,
  keywords = {Scientific Communication},
  author = {Douglas P. Peters and Stephen J. Ceci},
  title = {Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again},
  abstract = {12 research articles were resubmitted to the journals that had published them 18–32 mo previously, with ficticious names and institutions substituted for the original ones. Only 3 of the resubmissions were detected, and 8 of the remaining articles were rejected—primarily for "serious methodological flaws." Author–reviewer accountability is discussed, and recommendations for improving the peer review system are presented. Commentary on this article is provided by 56 authors along with the original authors' response. (3 p ref) (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)},
  year = {1982},
  journal = {Behavioral and Brain Sciences},
  volume = {5},
  pages = {187-195},
  month = {1982},
  issn = {1469-1825},
  doi = {10.1017/S0140525X00011183},
}