- 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
A review on a peer review.
Enzymes 14 (2016)
Abstract
Peer review is an opportunity to perform an unlawful censorship which ensures that no apostate notion ever get published in mainstream journals. Or such peer review censorship is an opportunity to steal any content and to claim afterward the priority of first publication. And last but not least, the peer review is an academic tool to promote the mainstream pseudoscienceAuthor's Profile
Links
PhilArchive
External links
(no proxy)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Through your library
- Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
- Configure custom resolver
My notes
Similar books and articles
Review of the Ethics and Etiquettes of Time Management of Manuscript Peer Review. [REVIEW]Malhar N. Kumar - 2014 - Journal of Academic Ethics 12 (4):333-346.
The principles and practices of Peer review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
The ethics of peer review in bioethics.David Wendler & Franklin Miller - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (10):697-701.
Peer-to-peer Review and the Future of Scholarly Authority.Kathleen Fitzpatrick - 2010 - Social Epistemology 24 (3):161-179.
Jury Theorems for Peer Review.Marcus Arvan, Liam Kofi Bright & Remco Heesen - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
A Prehistory of Peer Review: Religious Blueprints from the Hartlib Circle.Brent Tibor Ranalli - 2011 - Spontaneous Generations 5 (1):12-18.
A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review.Mehdi Dadkhah, Mohsen Kahani & Glenn Borchardt - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (5):1603-1610.
Peer Review system: A Golden standard for publications process.Shamima Parvin Lasker - 2018 - Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 9 (1):13-23.
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.
Appendix. Comparing peer review and information prizes: A possible economics experiment.Robin Hanson - 1995 - Social Epistemology 9 (1):49-55.
Promoting F.A.I.T.H. in Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review.Turner Leigh - 2003 - Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
It Is Time to Re-Evaluate the Peer Review Process for Preclinical Research.Rajat Bhattacharya & Lee M. Ellis - 2018 - Bioessays 40 (1):1700185.
Mu H ado about Peer review, part 2.Daryl E. Chubin - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (1):109-112.
Analytics
Added to PP
2020-03-29
Downloads
385 (#50,021)
6 months
61 (#70,832)
2020-03-29
Downloads
385 (#50,021)
6 months
61 (#70,832)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
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-l2pxr uwo