- 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
Responsible authorship and Peer review
Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (2):155-174 (2002)
Abstract
In this article the basic principles of responsible authorship and peer review are surveyed, with special emphasis on (a) guidelines for refereeing archival journal articles and proposals; and (b) how these guidelines should be taken into account at all stages of writing.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
Learned Inquiry and the Net: The Role of Peer Review, Peer Commentary and Copyright.Stevan Harnad - unknown
The principles and practices of Peer review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
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. [REVIEW]Leigh Turner - 2003 - Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
Authorship and Responsibility in Health Sciences Research: A Review of Procedures for Fairly Allocating Authorship in Multi-Author Studies.Elise Smith & Bryn Williams-Jones - 2012 - Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (2):199-212.
Overview: Underserved Areas of Education in the Responsible Conduct of Research: Authorship.Michael W. Kalichman - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (2):335-339.
Policies and perspectives on authorship.Mary Rose & Karla Fischer - 1995 - Science and Engineering Ethics 1 (4):361-370.
Responsible Authorship: Why Researchers Must Forgo Honorary Authorship.Barton Moffatt - 2011 - Accountability in Research 18 (2):76-90.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
47 (#323,378)
6 months
6 (#431,022)
2009-01-28
Downloads
47 (#323,378)
6 months
6 (#431,022)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Some Opinions on the Review Process of Research Papers Destined for Publication.Ehsan Roohi & Omid Mahian - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (3):809-812.
Bias in Peer Review of Organic Farming Grant Applications.Jesper Rasmussen, Vibeke Langer & Hugo Fjelsted Alrøe - 2006 - Agriculture and Human Values 23 (2):181-188.
References found in this work
Competency testing for reviewers and editors.Rosalyn S. Yalow - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):244-245.
Mu H ado about Peer review, part 2.Daryl E. Chubin - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (1):109-112.
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