Ranking, peer review, bibiometrics and alternative ways to improve the quality of doctrinal legal scholarship

In Rob van Gestel, Hans-W. Micklitz & Edward L. Rubin (eds.), Rethinking legal scholarship: a transatlantic dialogue. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,168

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
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

The ethics of peer review in bioethics.David Wendler & Franklin Miller - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (10):697-701.
The tragedy of the common reviewers: the peer review process.Ulysses Paulino De Albuquerque - unknown
It Is Time to Re-Evaluate the Peer Review Process for Preclinical Research.Rajat Bhattacharya & Lee M. Ellis - 2018 - Bioessays 40 (1):1700185.
Legal Theory and Legal Doctrinal Scholarship.Mátyás Bódig - 2010 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 23 (2):483-514.
The principles and practices of Peer review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review.Alex O. Holcombe, Barnabas Szaszi & Balazs Aczel - 2021 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 6 (1).
Peering, viewing and reviewing: What makes a Peer review good. Mohini & Sakir Ahmed - 2022 - Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics 3 (2):119-124.
Commensuration Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (5):1272-1283,.
The evaluation of ontologies: Editorial review vs. democratic ranking.Barry Smith - 2008 - In Proceedings of InterOntology (Tokyo, Japan, 26-27 February 2008),. Keio University Press. pp. 127-138.
Evaluating the Pros and Cons of Different Peer Review Policies via Simulation.Jia Zhu, Gabriel Fung, Wai Hung Wong, Zhixu Li & Chuanhua Xu - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (4):1073-1094.
Appendix. Comparing peer review and information prizes: A possible economics experiment.Robin Hanson - 1995 - Social Epistemology 9 (1):49-55.
What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis.Amanda Blatch-Jones, Simon Fraser, Hazel Church, Kathryn Fackrell, Katie Meadmore, Ksenia Crane & Alejandra Recio-Saucedo - 2022 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 7 (1).
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.
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.
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.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-12-09

Downloads
0

6 months
0

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references