Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Research on Social Work Practice
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Epstein, W. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Confirmational Response Bias and the Quality of the Editorial Processes Among American Social Work Journals

William M. Epstein

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Objective: To experimentally test for confirmational response bias among social work journals and to assess the time-liness and quality of the referee review process. Method: A positive and a negative version of two stimulus articles were sent to two randomized groups of 31 social work journals; journals were stratified by prestige; the timeliness of journal responses were recorded; four judges rated the quality of referee reviews against a high-quality referee review from a prestigious clinical psychology journal. Results: The differences in acceptance rates between positive and negative versions of the stimulus articles were significant in one case and not significant in the other. Combining the results of this experiment with a previous experiment produced significant results overall; the quality of 73.5% of the referee reviews were inadequate. Conclusion: There are substantial problems of bias, timeliness, and quality in the editorial decisions and review processes of social work journals.

Key Words: confirmational response bias • social work research • research bias

Research on Social Work Practice, Vol. 14, No. 6, 450-458 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/1049731504265838
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Sociological Methods ResearchHome page
A. S. Gerber and N. Malhotra
Publication Bias in Empirical Sociological Research: Do Arbitrary Significance Levels Distort Published Results?
Sociological Methods Research, August 1, 2008; 37(1): 3 - 30.
[Abstract] [PDF]