This research was supported in part by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO; R-57-178). I thank the organizers of two conferences, Chuck Stangor and Wolfgang Wagner, for their help in conducting this research; Wilma Otten and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript; and all of the social psychologists who generously participated in this research.
Why Authors Believe That Reviewers Stress Limiting Aspects of Manuscripts: The SLAM Effect in Peer Review1
Article first published online: 31 JUL 2006
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Volume 29, Issue 12, pages 2550–2566, December 1999
How to Cite
Van Lange, P. A. M. (1999), Why Authors Believe That Reviewers Stress Limiting Aspects of Manuscripts: The SLAM Effect in Peer Review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29: 2550–2566. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00125.x
- Issue published online: 31 JUL 2006
- Article first published online: 31 JUL 2006
This manuscript describes a preliminary study examining judgments of authors and reviewers regarding manuscripts that have been either accepted or rejected for publication. Consistent with hypotheses, results reveal that participants believe that their own manuscripts are superior to others' manuscripts in terms of general, theoretical, and methodological quality. Relevant to the presumed tendency among reviewers to stress limiting aspects of manuscripts (SLAM), reviewers exhibited greater agreement with editorial decisions favoring rejection, relative to those favoring acceptance. These findings suggest that authors' beliefs in reviewers' tendencies to SLAM can be partially understood in terms of authors' unrealistically favorable and optimistic beliefs regarding their manuscripts and in reviewers' actual tendencies to be quite critical—at least more critical than editors.