- 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
Do we really want more “reliable” reviewers?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):152-154 (1991)
Abstract
This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)Other Versions
No versions found
My notes
Similar books and articles
Do peer reviewers really agree more on rejections than acceptances? A random-agreement benchmark says they do not.Gerald S. Wasserman - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):165-166.
Which evolutionary process, and where do we want to go?Bjørn Grinde - 2014 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37 (4):425-426.
Do IQ tests really measure intelligence?Peter H. Schönemann - 1983 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6 (2):311-313.
Do grooming and speech really serve homologous functions?Merlin Donald - 1993 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (4):700-701.
Competency testing for reviewers and editors.Rosalyn S. Yalow - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):244-245.
Disagreement among journal reviewers: No cause for undue alarm.Lawrence J. Stricker - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):163-164.
What we really need is a theory of mathematical ability.Richard E. Mayer - 1988 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11 (2):202-203.
Really taking metaphysics seriously.Barbara Montero - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (5):632-633.
What do pointing errors really tell us about internal coordinate transformations?H. Cruse & J. Dean - 1992 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 15 (2):333-335.
Analytics
Added to PP
2014-01-20
Downloads
34 (#665,199)
6 months
8 (#583,676)
2014-01-20
Downloads
34 (#665,199)
6 months
8 (#583,676)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
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-wmc4m dc2