- 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
The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):119-135 (1991)
Abstract
This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)Other Versions
No versions found
My notes
Similar books and articles
Domenic V. Cicchetti (1991) the reliability of Peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Bbs 14: 119-186. Author's response. [REVIEW]C. Crothers, Rd Luce, Jd Sinclair & Dv Cicchetti - 1993 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (2):398-403.
The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: “It's like déjà vu all over again!”.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1993 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (2):401-403.
Peer review reliability: The hierarchy of the sciences.Charles Crothers - 1993 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (2):398-399.
Reliability and validity of peer review.David Zeaman - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):245-245.
Some indices of the reliability of peer review.Robert Rosenthal - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):160-161.
Reliability and bias in peer-review practices.Robert Rosenthal - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):235-236.
Consensus and the reliability of peer-review evaluations.Stephen Cole - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):140-141.
Replication, reliability and peer review: A case study.Michael E. Gorman - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):149-149.
Why is the reliability of peer review so low?Donald Laming - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):154-156.
Analytics
Added to PP
2014-01-20
Downloads
99 (#213,774)
6 months
18 (#163,977)
2014-01-20
Downloads
99 (#213,774)
6 months
18 (#163,977)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Social Biases and Solution for Procedural Objectivity.Carole J. Lee & Christian D. Schunn - 2011 - Hypatia 26 (2):352-73.
Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.David B. Resnik & Susan A. Elmore - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (1):169-188.
Mavericks and lotteries.Shahar Avin - 2019 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 76:13-23.
A Kuhnian Critique of Psychometric Research on Peer Review.Carole J. Lee - 2012 - Philosophy of Science 79 (5):859-870.
References found in this work
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas Samuel Kuhn - 1962 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Edited by Otto Neurath.
Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic & Amos Tversky (eds.) - 1982 - Cambridge University Press.
Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment.Richard E. Nisbett & Lee Ross - 1980 - Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.
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.
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-667477cd97-lxkd2 dc2