The Quality and Credibility of Research Reviews: What the Editors Say
- 1 June 1991
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
- Vol. 17 (3) , 267-272
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167291173006
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.Keywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- Disturbed by Meta-Analysis?Science, 1988
- Best-Evidence Synthesis: An Alternative to Meta-Analytic and Traditional ReviewsEducational Researcher, 1986
- The Evaluation of Educational Journals Through the Study of CitationsEducational Researcher, 1981
- Methods for Integrative ReviewsReview of Educational Research, 1980
- Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments.American Psychologist, 1978
- An exercise in mega-silliness.American Psychologist, 1978
- Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of ResearchEducational Researcher, 1976
- A study of criteria for journal manuscripts.American Psychologist, 1970
- Connotations of twenty psychological journals to their professional readers.American Psychologist, 1967