01015nas a2200157   4500000000100000008004100001260000900042653002900051100002200080700002000102245010100122300001200223490000600235520060200241022001400843       1982                            d  c198210aScientific Communication1 aDouglas P. Peters1 aStephen J. Ceci00aPeer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again  a187-1950 v53 a12 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)  a1469-1825