- 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
Peer reviewing: Improve or be rejected
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):218-219 (1982)
Abstract
This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)My notes
Similar books and articles
The principles and practices of Peer review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
The tragedy of the common reviewers: the peer review process.Ulysses Paulino De Albuquerque - unknown
What should be done improve reviewing?Rick Crandall - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):143-143.
An educational programme for peer review groups to improve treatment of chronic heart failure and diabetes mellitus type 2 in general practice.Willeke N. Kasje, Petra Denig, Roy E. Stewart, Pieter A. de Graeff & Flora M. Haaijer-Ruskamp - 2006 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 12 (6):613-621.
Reviewing the Unsubstantiated Claims for the Methodological Superiority of 'Placebo' over 'Active' Controlled Trials: Reply to Open Peer Commentaries.Jeremy Howick - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (9):5-7.
Peer-to-peer Review and the Future of Scholarly Authority.Kathleen Fitzpatrick - 2010 - Social Epistemology 24 (3):161-179.
Notes on Italian Philosophy, Peer-Reviews and “la corruttela”.Annalisa Coliva - 2010 - Philosophia 38 (1):29-39.
Argumentation and Explanation in Conceptual Change: Indications From Protocol Analyses of Peer‐to‐Peer Dialog.Christa S. C. Asterhan & Baruch B. Schwarz - 2009 - Cognitive Science 33 (3):374-400.
Religiosity, ethical ideology, and intentions to report a Peer's wrongdoing.Tim Barnett, Ken Bass & Gene Brown - 1996 - Journal of Business Ethics 15 (11):1161 - 1174.
Analytics
Added to PP
2014-01-20
Downloads
17 (#846,424)
6 months
3 (#992,474)
2014-01-20
Downloads
17 (#846,424)
6 months
3 (#992,474)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):119-135.
Reliability, fairness, objectivity and other inappropriate goals in peer review.John C. Bailar - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):137-138.
Reflections from the peer review mirror.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):167-186.
Referee agreement in context.Lowell L. Hargens - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):150-151.
Confusion between reviewer reliability and wise editorial and funding decisions.Charles A. Kiesler - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):151-152.
References found in this work
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas S. Kuhn - 1962 - Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Edited by Ian Hacking.
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.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.David Bohm - 1964 - Philosophical Quarterly 14 (57):377-379.
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-7c76586df8-5tf24 uwo