- 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
Confusion between reviewer reliability and wise editorial and funding decisions
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):151-152 (1991)
Abstract
This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)Other Versions
No versions found
My notes
Similar books and articles
Reviewer reliability: Confusing random error with systematic error or bias.Stanley Presser - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):234-235.
A challenge to Peters and Ceci's conclusions with an examination of editorial files for reviewer appropriateness.Robert Boice, Gayle Pecker, Ellen Zaback & David H. Barlow - 1985 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8 (4):744-745.
Experimenter and reviewer bias.Joseph C. Witt & Michael J. Hannafin - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):243-244.
False dilemmas: Confusion between mechanism and computation.Kent A. Stevens - 1983 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6 (4):675.
Reviewer “bias”: Do Peters and Ceci protest too much?Daniel Perlman - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):231-232.
Peer review reliability: The hierarchy of the sciences.Charles Crothers - 1993 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (2):398-399.
Analytics
Added to PP
2014-01-20
Downloads
28 (#800,559)
6 months
6 (#861,180)
2014-01-20
Downloads
28 (#800,559)
6 months
6 (#861,180)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Referees, editors, and publication practices: Improving the reliability and usefulness of the Peer review system.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):51-62.
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.
Reliability is neither to be expected nor desired in peer review.R. Duncan Luce - 1993 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (2):399-400.
Peer review reliability: The hierarchy of the sciences.Charles Crothers - 1993 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (2):398-399.
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-lv8mh dc2