Peer review: Selecting the best science [Book Review]

&
Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):11-17 (1997)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The major challenge facing today’s biomedical researchers is the increasing competition for available funds. The competitive review process, through which the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards grants, is built upon review by a committee of expert scientists. The NIH is firmly committed to ensuring that its peer review system is fair and objective.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1007/s11948-997-0013-7

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,410

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Appendix. Comparing peer review and information prizes: A possible economics experiment.Robin Hanson - 1995 - Social Epistemology 9 (1):49-55.
Reflections on Peer review practices in committees selecting laureates for prestigious awards and prizes: Some relevant and irrelevant criteria.Ashok K. Vijh - 1996 - Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (4):389-394.
Promoting F.A.I.T.h. In Peer review: Five core attributes of effective Peer review. [REVIEW]Leigh Turner - 2003 - Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
Referees, editors, and publication practices: Improving the reliability and usefulness of the Peer review system.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):51-62.
Peer-review and patents: Why the goose that lays the golden egg is a red Herring.Sivaramjani Thambisetty & Kartik Kumaramangalam - unknown
‘Peer review’ culture.Malcolm Atkinson - 2001 - Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2):193-204.
Peer review and publication: Lessons for lawyers.Susan Haack - 2007 - Stetson Law Review 36 (3).
Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process.Wendy Lipworth, Ian H. Kerridge, Stacy M. Carter & Miles Little - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):267-280.
The principles and practices of Peer review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
53 (#303,318)

6 months
3 (#984,838)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Peer review and innovation.Raymond Spier - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (1):99-108.
Using a dialectical scientific brief in Peer review.Arthur Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
Using a dialectical scientific brief in peer review.Arthur Stamps Iii - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references