The Quality and Credibility of Research Reviews: What the Editors Say

Abstract

This research examines the comments on research reviews of a group of editors of journals that focus on summaries and integrations of theoretical and empirical research in education and psychology. The issues that review editors find important in review manuscripts coincide with their beliefs about what makes reviews credible. Editors value clarity in all aspects of the research review and believe that the use of scholarly and replicable methods for summarizing primary research promotes the credibility of reviews. These same issues have also been identified as important in the evaluation of reports of primary research and are mentioned in the literature on methods for research reviews.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chase,J. M. (1970). Normative criteria for scientific publication. American Sociologist, 5, 262-265.

Cooper, H. M. (1989). Integrating research: A guide for literature reviews (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Crane, D. (1967). The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals. American Sociologist, 2, 195-201.

Eysenck, H. (1978). An exercise in mega-silliness. American Psychologist, 33, 517.

Frantz, T. T. (1968). Criteria for publishable manuscripts. Personnel and Guidance Journal 47, 384-386.

Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3-8.

Gottfredson, S. (1978). Evaluating psychological research reports. American Psychologist, 33, 920-934.

Jackson, G. B. (1980). Methods of integrative reviews. Review of Educational Research, 50, 438-460.

Jacobovits, L. A. , & Osgood, C. E. (1967). Connotations of twenty psychological journals to their professional readers. American Psychologist, 22, 792-800.

10.

Light, R. J. , & Pillemer, D. B. (1985). Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

11.

Slavin, R. E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educational Researcher, 15, 5-11.

12.

Smith, N. L. , & Caulley, D. N. (1981). The evaluation of educational journals through the study of citations. Educational Researcher, 10, 11-12, 22-24.

13.

Wachter, K. W. (1988). Disturbed by meta-analysis? Science 241, 1407-1408.

14.

Wolff, W. M. (1970). A study of criteria for journal manuscripts. American Psychologist, 25, 636-639.