Peer Review of Interdisciplinary Research Proposals [Book Review]

&
Science, Technology and Human Values 10 (3):33-38 (1985)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Categories

Add categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1177/016224398501000304

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,813

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

The ethics of peer review in bioethics.David Wendler & Franklin Miller - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (10):697-701.
A new forum for research on research integrity and peer review.Elizabeth Wager, Iveta Simera, Maria K. Kowalczuk & Stephanie L. Harriman - 2016 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 1 (1).
The principles and practices of Peer review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
Research Integrity and Peer Review—past highlights and future directions.Elizabeth C. Moylan, Elizabeth Wager, Joerg J. Meerpohl, Maria K. Kowalczuk & Stephanie L. Boughton - 2018 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 3 (1).
Regulating Human Participants Protection in Medical Research and the Accreditation of Medical Research Ethics Committees in the Netherlands.Marcel J. H. Kenter - 2009 - Journal of Academic Ethics 7 (1-2):33-43.
Advances in peer review research: an introduction.Arthur E. Stamps Iii - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):3-10.
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.
Using a dialectical scientific brief in peer review.Arthur Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin - 2013 - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.
Promoting F.A.I.T.H. in Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review.Turner Leigh - 2003 - Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
A decent proposal: ethical review of clinical research.Donald Evans - 1996 - New York, N.Y.: Wiley. Edited by Martyn Evans.
How Editors Decide. Oral Communication in Journal Peer Review.Stefan Hirschauer - 2015 - Human Studies 38 (1):37-55.
The Principles of Fair Allocation of Peer-Review: How Much Should a Researcher be Expected to Contribute?José G. B. Derraik - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (4):825-828.
‘Are you siding with a personality or the grant proposal?’: observations on how peer review panels function.Adrian Barnett, Nicholas Graves, Karen E. Mow, Kathy Hill, Danielle L. Herbert & John Coveney - 2017 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 2 (1).
The Ups and Downs of Peer Review: Making Funding Choices for Science.Franz A. Foltz - 2000 - Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 20 (6):427-440.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-11-27

Downloads
5 (#1,557,157)

6 months
4 (#853,525)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and the epistemology of contemporary science.Hanne Andersen - 2016 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 56:1-10.
Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin - 2013 - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.
The Power of Peer Review on Transdisciplinary Discovery.Elina I. Mäkinen - 2019 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 44 (6):1020-1047.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references