- 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
Funding Science: The Real Defects of Peer Review and An Alternative To It [Book Review]
Science, Technology and Human Values 10 (3):73-81 (1985)
Abstract
This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)My notes
Similar books and articles
The Ups and Downs of Peer Review: Making Funding Choices for Science.Franz A. Foltz - 2000 - Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 20 (6):427-440.
Should we fund research randomly? An epistemological criticism of the lottery model as an alternative to peer-review for the funding of science.Baptiste Bedessem - forthcoming - Research Evaluation.
Peer review: Selecting the best science. [REVIEW]Wendy Baldwin & Belinda Seto - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):11-17.
Peer Review or Lottery? A Critical Analysis of Two Different Forms of Decision-making Mechanisms for Allocation of Research Grants.Lambros Roumbanis - 2019 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 44 (6):994-1019.
Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin - 2013 - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.
The principles and practices of Peer review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
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.
Frequency and Type of Conflicts of Interest in the Peer Review of Basic Biomedical Research Funding Applications: Self-Reporting Versus Manual Detection.Stephen A. Gallo, Michael Lemaster & Scott R. Glisson - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (1):189-197.
The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants.Lucy Pomeroy, Tony Blakely, Adrian Barnett, Philip Clarke, Vernon Choy & Mengyao Liu - 2020 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 5 (1).
Using democracy to award research funding: an observational study.Nicholas Graves, Cedryck Vaquette, Philip Clarke & Adrian G. Barnett - 2017 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 2 (1).
A mid-level approach to modeling scientific communities.Audrey Harnagel - 2019 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 76:49-59.
The Principles of Fair Allocation of Peer-Review: How Much Should a Researcher be Expected to Contribute?José G. B. Derraik - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (4):825-828.
Appendix. Comparing peer review and information prizes: A possible economics experiment.Robin Hanson - 1995 - Social Epistemology 9 (1):49-55.
Analytics
Added to PP
2020-11-27
Downloads
8 (#1,313,626)
6 months
5 (#628,512)
2020-11-27
Downloads
8 (#1,313,626)
6 months
5 (#628,512)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Unconceived alternatives and conservatism in science: the impact of professionalization, peer-review, and Big Science.P. Kyle Stanford - 2019 - Synthese 196 (10):3915-3932.
Unconceived alternatives and conservatism in science: the impact of professionalization, peer-review, and Big Science.P. Kyle Stanford - 2015 - Synthese:1-18.
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.
Peer Review or Lottery? A Critical Analysis of Two Different Forms of Decision-making Mechanisms for Allocation of Research Grants.Lambros Roumbanis - 2019 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 44 (6):994-1019.
Fairness as Appropriateness: Negotiating Epistemological Differences in Peer Review.Joshua Guetzkow, Michèle Lamont & Grégoire Mallard - 2009 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 34 (5):573-606.
References found in this work
The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory. [REVIEW]Michael Polanyi - 2000 - Minerva 38 (1):1-21.
Federal support of basic research: Some economic issues. [REVIEW]Harry G. Johnson - 1965 - Minerva 3 (4):500-514.
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-wg6s5 uwo