Structural Factors and the Quality of Publication in Social Work Journals (Editorial‪)‬

The publication standards and review practices of social work journals have been the subject of sporadic attention in the past quarter century. Existing studies have examined at least five aspects of journal publication including the (1) scholarly records of editorial board members (Lindsey, 1976; Pardeck, 1992; Pardeck & Meinert, 1999; Thyer & Polk, 1997); (2) quality and reliability of manuscript reviews (Epstein, 1990, 2004; Kirk & Franke, 1997); (3) assessment of confirmational response bias to determine if reviewers and editors are more likely to accept studies reporting positive outcomes than negative ones (Epstein, 1990, 2004); (4) impact of journals on the field (Lindsey & Kirk, 1992); and, (5) decision making and editorial practices used by journals (Thyer & Myers, 2003). Results from the aforementioned studies reveal modest scholarly records among many journal editorial board members, considerable levels of variation in the quality and reliability of manuscript reviews, mixed findings pertaining to the presence of conformational response bias, low impact scores for many journals, and perceived inefficiencies in review practices. In addition, these studies have been the subject of frequent and lively debate in the social work literature. Pardeck's (1992) findings, for example, yielded seven different responses from leading journal editors in a 1992 issue of Research on Social Work Practice.