Switch to: References

Citations of:

The Force of Knowledge: The Scientific Dimension of Society

Cambridge University Press (1976)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Of Communities and Individuals as Regards Scientific Knowledge.Haris Shekeris - unknown
    In this paper I will be implicitly defending the following thesis: An individual X obtains knowledge of scientific claim p in virtue of being a member of a community A that regards claim p as knowledge. The thesis states is that a claim p only becomes scientific knowledge once it's been through a process of validation by a scientific community. This is meant to be contrasted with the claim that individuals first obtain scientific knowledge perception or inference, and then transmit (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author's Formula.J. Scott Armstrong - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):197-199.
  • The Reinvention of Grand Theories of the Scientific/Scholarly Process.Marion Blute & Paul Armstrong - 2011 - Perspectives on Science 19 (4):391-425.
    This research was inspired by Werner Callebaut's (1993) classic in which he interviewed major contemporary philosophers of science (specifically of biology) at a time when the interdisciplinary label of "science studies" had hardly been invented. The "real" in his title, Taking the Naturalistic Turn: How Real Philosophy of Science is Done, was a playful reference to debates over realism in Philosophy—the title as a whole drawing attention to his intent to study science studies empirically. That, for Callebaut, was "real" philosophy.In (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Critique of Science Becomes Academic.Brian Martin - 1993 - Science, Technology and Human Values 18 (2):247-259.
    The author uses personal experiences to introduce the view that the critique of science, on entering the academy in the form of the sociology of scientific knowledge, has become increasingly remote from crucial social issues and social movements confronting it. By linking their analyses more with such issues and movements, science studies scholars can serve a more useful social purpose and also reinvigorate their theory.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Now That We Know How Low the Reliability is, What Shall We Do?Kurt Salzinger - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):162-162.
  • Biases, Decisions and Auctorial Rebuttal in the Peer-Review Process.David S. Palermo - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):230-231.
  • What is the Source of Bias in Peer Review?Ray Over - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):229-230.
  • Reliability, Bias, or Quality: What is the Issue?Katherine Nelson - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):229-229.
  • Rejecting Published Work: It Couldn't Happen in Physics!Michael J. Moravcsik - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):228-229.
  • Designing Peer Review for the Subjective as Well as the Objective Side of Science.Ian I. Mitroff - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):227-228.
  • When We Practice to Deceive: The Ethics of a Metascientific Inquiry.Burton Mindick - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):226-227.
  • Making the Plausible Implausible: A Favorable Review of Peters and Ceci's Target Article.Jason Millman - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):225-226.
  • Reform Peer Review: The Peters and Ceci Study in the Context of Other Current Studies of Scientific Evaluation.Clyde Manwell & C. M. Ann Baker - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):221-225.
  • Publication, Politics, and Scientific Progress.Michael J. Mahoney - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):220-221.
  • Peer Review: Prediction of the Future or Judgment of the Past?Richard T. Louttit - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):219-220.
  • Interreferee Agreement and Acceptance Rates in Physics.David Lazarus - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):219-219.
  • Peer Reviewing: Improve or Be Rejected.Michael J. A. Howe - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):218-219.
  • Peer Review: A Philosophically Faulty Concept Which is Proving Disastrous for Science.David F. Horrobin - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):217-218.
  • Peer Review in the Physical Sciences: An Editor's View.William M. Honig - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):216-217.
  • The Insufficiencies of Methodological Inadequacy.Robert Hogan - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):216-216.
  • Scientific Communication: So Where Do We Go From Here?James Hartley - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):215-216.
  • Judging Document Content Versus Social Functions of Refereeing: Possible and Impossible Tasks.Belver C. Griffith - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):214-215.
  • Optional Published Refereeing.R. A. Gordon - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):213-214.
  • Cognitive Relativism and Peer-Review Bias.M. D. Gordon - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):213-213.
  • When Will the Editors Start to Edit?Leonard D. Goodstein - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):212-213.
  • The Journal Article Review Process as a Game of Chance.Norval D. Glenn - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):211-212.
  • Review Bias: Positive or Negative, Good or Bad?Russell G. Geen - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):211-211.
  • Deception in the Study of the Peer-Review Process.Joseph L. Fleiss - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):210-211.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Theoretical Implications of Failure to Detect Prepublished Submissions.Douglas Lee Eckberg - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):209-210.
  • Authorship and Manuscript Reviewing: The Risk of Bias.Lois DeBakey - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):208-209.
  • Editorial Responsibilities in Manuscript Review.Rick Crandall - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):207-208.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Criterion Problems in Journal Review Practices.John D. Cone - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):206-207.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Manuscript Evaluation by Journal Referees and Editors: Randomness or Bias?Andrew M. Colman - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):205-206.
  • On Peer Review: “We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us”.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):205-205.
  • Reforming Peer Review: From Recycling to Reflexivity.Daryl E. Chubin - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):204-204.
  • Peer Review and the Structure of Knowledge.Marian Blissett - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):203-204.
  • Explaining an Unsurprising Demonstration: High Rejection Rates and Scarcity of Space.Janice M. Beyer - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):202-203.
  • Computer-Assisted Referee Selection as a Means of Reducing Potential Editorial Bias.H. Russell Bernard - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):202-202.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Peer Review and the Current Anthropology Experience.Cyril Belshaw - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):200-201.
  • On the Failure to Detect Previously Published Research.Donald deB Beaver - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):199-200.
  • The Fate of Published Articles, Submitted Again.John J. Bartko - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):199-199.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Peer-Review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate of Published Articles, Submitted Again.Douglas P. Peters & Stephen J. Ceci - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):187-195.
    A growing interest in and concern about the adequacy and fairness of modern peer-review practices in publication and funding are apparent across a wide range of scientific disciplines. Although questions about reliability, accountability, reviewer bias, and competence have been raised, there has been very little direct research on these variables.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   187 citations  
  • Peer-Review Research: Objections and Obligations.Douglas P. Peters & Stephen J. Ceci - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):246-255.
  • Bias, Incompetence, or Bad Management?John Ziman - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):245-246.
  • Reliability and Validity of Peer Review.David Zeaman - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):245-245.
  • Competency Testing for Reviewers and Editors.Rosalyn S. Yalow - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):244-245.
  • Experimenter and Reviewer Bias.Joseph C. Witt & Michael J. Hannafin - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):243-244.
  • Research on Peer-Review Practices: Problems of Interpretation, Application, and Propriety.William A. Wilson - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):242-243.
  • The Quandary of Manuscript Reviewing.Grover J. Whitehurst - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):241-242.
  • Some Procedural Obscurities in Peters and Ceci's Peer-Review Study.Murray J. White - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):241-241.