Does the need for agreement among reviewers inhibit the publication controversial findings?

&
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):136-137 (1991)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1017/s0140525x00065699

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

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

Ethical concerns of nursing reviewers: An international survey.Marion Broome, Molly C. Dougherty, Margaret C. Freda, Margaret H. Kearney & Judith G. Baggs - 2010 - Nursing Ethics 17 (6):741-748.
Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation.J. Scott Armstrong - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.
The tragedy of the common reviewers: the peer review process.Ulysses Paulino De Albuquerque - unknown
Reviewer index: A new proposal of rewarding the reviewer.S. G. Kachewar & S. B. Sankaye - 2013 - Mens Sana Monographs 11 (1):274.
Do peer reviewers really agree more on rejections than acceptances? A random-agreement benchmark says they do not.Gerald S. Wasserman - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):165-166.
Publication Ethics: Obligations of authors, peer-reviewers, and editors.G. Van Norman & Stephen Jackson - 2010 - In G. A. van Norman, S. Jackson, S. H. Rosenbaum & S. K. Palmer (eds.), Clinical Ethics in Anesthesiology. Cambridge University Press.
Evidence for the effectiveness of Peer review.Robert H. Fletcher & Suzanne W. Fletcher - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):35-50.
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.
Peer reviewers can meet journals’ criteria for authorship.Thomas Erren, Michael Erren & David Shaw - 2013 - British Medical Journal 346:f166.
Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review.Professor Robert H. Fletcher & Professor Suzanne W. Fletcher - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):35-50.
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.
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.
Against Anonymity.Robert Baker - 2014 - Bioethics 28 (4):166-169.
UHCOHSCIOUS processes.Philip M. Merikle - unknown

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-20

Downloads
30 (#521,181)

6 months
21 (#122,285)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas Samuel Kuhn - 1962 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Edited by Otto Neurath.
Criticism and the growth of knowledge.Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.) - 1970 - Cambridge [Eng.]: Cambridge University Press.
The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations.Robert King Merton - 1973 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Edited by Norman W. Storer.

View all 46 references / Add more references