- Different rates of agreement on acceptance and rejection: A statistical artifact?Marilyn E. Demorest - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):144-145.details
|
|
Peer review: Explicit criteria and training can help.Fred Delcomyn - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):144-144.details
|
|
Authorship and manuscript reviewing: The risk of bias.Lois DeBakey - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):208-209.details
|
|
The Prestige of Social Scientists in Spain and France: An Examination of Their h-Index Values Using Scopus and Google Scholar.Marcelo P. Dabós, Ernesto R. Gantman & Carlos J. Fernández Rodríguez - 2019 - Minerva 57 (1):47-66.details
|
|
What should be done improve reviewing?Rick Crandall - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):143-143.details
|
|
Editorial responsibilities in manuscript review.Rick Crandall - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):207-208.details
|
|
Evaluating scholarly works: How many reviewers? How much anonymity?John D. Cone - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):142-142.details
|
|
Criterion problems in journal review practices.John D. Cone - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):206-207.details
|
|
Unreliable peer review: Causes and cures of human misery.Andrew M. Colman - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):141-142.details
|
|
Manuscript evaluation by journal referees and editors: Randomness or bias?Andrew M. Colman - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):205-206.details
|
|
Consensus and the reliability of peer-review evaluations.Stephen Cole - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):140-141.details
|
|
Does group discussion contribute reliability of complex judgments?Patricia Cohen - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):139-140.details
|
|
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.details
|
|
Reflections from the peer review mirror.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):167-186.details
|
|
On peer review: “We have met the enemy and he is us”.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):205-205.details
|
|
Reforming peer review: From recycling to reflexivity.Daryl E. Chubin - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):204-204.details
|
|
On fraud.Liam Kofi Bright - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 174 (2):291-310.details
|
|
Decision Theoretic Model of the Productivity Gap.Liam Kofi Bright - 2017 - Erkenntnis 82 (2):421-442.details
|
|
Preparation for professional self-regulation.John M. Braxton & Leonard L. Baird - 2001 - Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (4):593-610.details
|
|
Whom shall we Put on the Postage Stamps?Roger D. Boyle - 2013 - Science & Education 22 (3):695-707.details
|
|
Public Knowledge of and Attitudes to Science: Alternative Measures That May End the “Science War”.Pepka Boyadjieva, Kristina Petkova & Martin W. Bauer - 2000 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 25 (1):30-51.details
|
|
The trap of intellectual success: Robert N. Bellah, the American civil religion debate, and the sociology of knowledge.Matteo Bortolini - 2012 - Theory and Society 41 (2):187-210.details
|
|
The predictive validity of peer review: A neglected issue.Robert F. Bornstein - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):138-139.details
|
|
Peer review and the structure of knowledge.Marian Blissett - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):203-204.details
|
|
Explaining an unsurprising demonstration: High rejection rates and scarcity of space.Janice M. Beyer - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):202-203.details
|
|
Computer-assisted referee selection as a means of reducing potential editorial bias.H. Russell Bernard - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):202-202.details
|
|
Peer review and the Current Anthropology experience.Cyril Belshaw - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):200-201.details
|
|
On the failure to detect previously published research.Donald deB Beaver - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):199-200.details
|
|
Literate acts and the emergent social structure of science: A critical synthesis.Charles Bazerman - 1987 - Social Epistemology 1 (4):295 – 310.details
|
|
The fate of published articles, submitted again.John J. Bartko - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):199-199.details
|
|
Reliability, fairness, objectivity and other inappropriate goals in peer review.John C. Bailar - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):137-138.details
|
|
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.details
|
|
Barriers to scientific contributions: The author's formula.J. Scott Armstrong - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):197-199.details
|
|
Marvelling at the Marvel: The Supposed Conversion of A. D. Darbishire to Mendelism.Rachel A. Ankeny - 2000 - Journal of the History of Biology 33 (2):315 - 347.details
|
|
Peer review: An unflattering picture.Kenneth M. Adams - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):135-136.details
|
|
A physics editor comments on Peters and Ceci's peer-review study.Robert K. Adair - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):196-196.details
|
|
Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again.Douglas P. Peters & Stephen J. Ceci - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):187-255.details
|
|
Unraveling Scientific Impact: Citation types in marketing journals.Stefan Stremersch, Nuno Camacho, Sofie Vanneste & Isabel Verniers - 2015 - International Journal of Research in Marketing 32 (1):64-77.details
|
|
Rejecting published work: It couldn't happen in physics! (or could it?).Michael J. Moravcsik - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):228-229.details
|
|
Bias, incompetence, or bad management?John Ziman - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):245-246.details
|
|
What to do about peer review: Is the cure worse than the disease?Thomas R. Zentall - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):166-167.details
|
|
Reliability and validity of peer review.David Zeaman - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):245-245.details
|
|
Competency testing for reviewers and editors.Rosalyn S. Yalow - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):244-245.details
|
|
Experimenter and reviewer bias.Joseph C. Witt & Michael J. Hannafin - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):243-244.details
|
|
Research on peer-review practices: Problems of interpretation, application, and propriety.William A. Wilson - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):242-243.details
|
|
The quandary of manuscript reviewing.Grover J. Whitehurst - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):241-242.details
|
|
Some procedural obscurities in Peters and Ceci's peer-review study.Murray J. White - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):241-241.details
|
|
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.details
|
|
Chairman's action: The importance of executive decisions in peer review.Peter Tyrer - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):164-165.details
|
|
Perhaps it was right to reject the resubmitted manuscripts.Garth J. Thomas - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):240-240.details
|
|