- 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)Other Versions
No versions found
My notes
Similar books and articles
What should be done improve reviewing?Rick Crandall - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):143-143.
Responsibility in reviewing and research.Sol Tax & Robert A. Rubinstein - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):238-240.
The quandary of manuscript reviewing.Grover J. Whitehurst - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):241-242.
Peer review reliability: The hierarchy of the sciences.Charles Crothers - 1993 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (2):398-399.
Peer review in the physical sciences: An editor's view.William M. Honig - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):216-217.
Sex differences in brain asymmetry survive peer commentary!Jeannette McGlone - 1980 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (2):251-263.
Authorship and manuscript reviewing: The risk of bias.Lois DeBakey - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):208-209.
Is there an alternative to peer review?Richard Greene - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):149-150.
Reliability and validity of peer review.David Zeaman - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):245-245.
Analytics
Added to PP
2014-01-20
Downloads
87 (#631,403)
6 months
18 (#645,146)
2014-01-20
Downloads
87 (#631,403)
6 months
18 (#645,146)
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.
When nonreliability of reviews indicates solid science.Douglas Lee Eckberg - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):145-146.
References found in this work
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas 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.
Try MATCHA Writer if you're interested in citing directly from PhilPapers and certifying your authorship.
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