Competency testing for reviewers and editors

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):244-245 (1982)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1017/s0140525x00011729

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,937

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Disagreement among journal reviewers: No cause for undue alarm.Lawrence J. Stricker - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):163-164.
Whole brain testing versus hemisphere testing.Stuart J. Dimond - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):307-307.
Do we really want more “reliable” reviewers?Helena Chmura Kraemer - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):152-154.
Evaluating scholarly works: How many reviewers? How much anonymity?John D. Cone - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):142-142.
Does the need for agreement among reviewers inhibit the publication controversial findings?J. Scott Armstrong & Raymond Hubbard - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):136-137.
Reply to reviewers: Reuse, embodied interactivity, and the emerging paradigm shift in the human neurosciences.Michael L. Anderson - 2016 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39.
Testing the immunoreactive theory.William W. Beatty, Patricia A. Beatty & Donald E. Goodkin - 1985 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8 (3):442-442.
Testing for controlled variables.William T. Powers - 1992 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 15 (2):286-287.
A message from the new editors.Barbara Finlay, Paul Bloom & Jeffrey Gray - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (1):2-2.
When will the editors start to edit?Leonard D. Goodstein - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):212-213.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-20

Downloads
25 (#880,266)

6 months
9 (#485,111)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Peer Review May Not Be Such a Bad Idea: Response to Heesen and Bright.Darrell P. Rowbottom - 2022 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 73 (4):927-940.
Responsible authorship and Peer review.James R. Wilson - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (2):155-174.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas S. 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.

View all 22 references / Add more references