A physics editor comments on Peters and Ceci's peer-review study

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):196-196 (1982)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1017/s0140525x00011195

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,846

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

Some procedural obscurities in Peters and Ceci's peer-review study.Murray J. White - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):241-241.
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.
Peer review: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.Douglas P. Peters & Stephen J. Ceci - 1985 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8 (4):747-750.
Peer-review research: Objections and obligations.Douglas P. Peters & Stephen J. Ceci - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):246-255.
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):187-255.
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.
Ethical issues in journal Peer-review.J. Angelo Corlett - 2005 - Journal of Academic Ethics 2 (4):355-366.
Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry.David Shatz - 2004 - Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Jury Theorems for Peer Review.Marcus Arvan, Liam Kofi Bright & Remco Heesen - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal Peer review: An exploratory study.David B. Resnik, Christina Gutierrez-Ford & Shyamal Peddada - 2008 - Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (3):305-310.
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.
Peer-review and patents: Why the goose that lays the golden egg is a red Herring.Sivaramjani Thambisetty & Kartik Kumaramangalam - unknown
The problem of humiliation in peer review.Debra R. Comer & Michael Schwartz - 2014 - Ethics and Education 9 (2):141-156.
The principles and practices of Peer review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
Evaluating the Pros and Cons of Different Peer Review Policies via Simulation.Jia Zhu, Gabriel Fung, Wai Hung Wong, Zhixu Li & Chuanhua Xu - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (4):1073-1094.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-05-25

Downloads
11 (#1,136,567)

6 months
1 (#1,469,946)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

‘Peer review’ culture.Malcolm Atkinson - 2001 - Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2):193-204.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.David Bohm - 1964 - Philosophical Quarterly 14 (57):377-379.
Social Theory and Social Structure.Lawrence Haworth - 1959 - Philosophy of Science 26 (1):53-53.
The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments.Richard E. Nisbett & Timothy D. Wilson - 1977 - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35 (4):250-256.
Public Knowledge.John Ziman - 1969 - Philosophy of Science 36 (2):222-224.

View all 10 references / Add more references