- 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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
Replication, reliability and peer review: A case study.Michael E. Gorman - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):149-149.details
|
|
When we practice to deceive: The ethics of a metascientific inquiry.Burton Mindick - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):226-227.details
|
|
Scientific communication: So where do we go from here?James Hartley - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):215-216.details
|
|
Peer-review research: Objections and obligations.Douglas P. Peters & Stephen J. Ceci - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):246-255.details
|
|
Responsibility in reviewing and research.Sol Tax & Robert A. Rubinstein - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):238-240.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):187-195.details
|
|
Designing peer review for the subjective as well as the objective side of science.Ian I. Mitroff - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):227-228.details
|
|
Reliability, bias, or quality: What is the issue?Katherine Nelson - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):229-229.details
|
|
Why is the reliability of peer review so low?Donald Laming - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):154-156.details
|
|
Justice, efficiency and epistemology in the peer review of scientific manuscripts.Michael J. Mahoney - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):157-157.details
|
|
What is the source of bias in peer review?Ray Over - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):229-230.details
|
|
Deception in the study of the peer-review process.Joseph L. Fleiss - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):210-211.details
|
|
Interreferee agreement and acceptance rates in physics.David Lazarus - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):219-219.details
|
|
Anosmic peer review: A rose by another name is evidently not a rose.Sandra Scarr - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):237-238.details
|
|
Should the blinded lead the blinded?Stephen P. Lock - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):156-157.details
|
|
Some indices of the reliability of peer review.Robert Rosenthal - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):160-161.details
|
|
Now that we know how low the reliability is, what shall we do?Kurt Salzinger - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):162-162.details
|
|
Peer review: A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous for science.David F. Horrobin - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):217-218.details
|
|
Theoretical implications of failure to detect prepublished submissions.Douglas Lee Eckberg - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):209-210.details
|
|
Confusion between reviewer reliability and wise editorial and funding decisions.Charles A. Kiesler - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):151-152.details
|
|
Reform peer review: The Peters and Ceci study in the context of other current studies of scientific evaluation.Clyde Manwell & C. M. Ann Baker - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):221-225.details
|
|
Review bias: Positive or negative, good or bad?Russell G. Geen - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):211-211.details
|
|