- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
The predictive validity of peer review: A neglected issue
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):138-139 (1991)
Abstract
This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)My notes
Similar books and articles
The predictive validity of typical and maximal personality measures in self-reports and peer reports.Robert C. Klesges, Hugh Mcginley, Gregory J. Jurkovic & Thomas J. Morgan - 1979 - Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 13 (6):401-404.
The principles and practices of Peer review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
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-to-peer Review and the Future of Scholarly Authority.Kathleen Fitzpatrick - 2010 - Social Epistemology 24 (3):161-179.
Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-Analysis of Predictive Validity.Eric Luis Uhlmann - unknown
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.
Reliability and validity of peer review.David Zeaman - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):245-245.
Appendix. Comparing peer review and information prizes: A possible economics experiment.Robin Hanson - 1995 - Social Epistemology 9 (1):49-55.
What We Owe the Author: rethinking editorial peer review.N. J. Crigger - 1998 - Nursing Ethics 5 (5):451-457.
Peer review: Selecting the best science. [REVIEW]Wendy Baldwin & Belinda Seto - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):11-17.
Analytics
Added to PP
2014-01-20
Downloads
26 (#609,328)
6 months
4 (#783,478)
2014-01-20
Downloads
26 (#609,328)
6 months
4 (#783,478)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
The principles and practices of Peer review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
References found in this work
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas Samuel Kuhn - 1962 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Edited by Otto Neurath.
Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic & Amos Tversky (eds.) - 1982 - Cambridge University Press.
Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment.Richard E. Nisbett & Lee Ross - 1980 - Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.
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.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-64dd777598-g9b9l uwo