Switch to: References

Citations of:

Peer review: A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous for science

David F. Horrobin

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):217-218 (1982)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.

‘Peer review’ culture.Malcolm Atkinson - 2001 - Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2):193-204.details A relatively high incidence of unsatisfactory review decisions is widely recognised and acknowledged as ‘the peer review problem’. Factors contributing to this problem are identified and examined. Specific examples of unreasonable rejection are considered. It is concluded that weaknesses of the ‘peer review’ system are significant and that they are well known or readily recognisable but that necessary counter-measures are not always enforced. Careful management is necessary to discount hollow opinion or error in review comment. Review and referee functions should (...) be quite separate. (shrink) Download Export citation Bookmark 5 citations
Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation.J. Scott Armstrong - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.details This paper reviews the published empirical evidence concerning journal peer review consisting of 68 papers, all but three published since 1975. Peer review improves quality, but its use to screen papers has met with limited success. Current procedures to assure quality and fairness seem to discourage scientific advancement, especially important innovations, because findings that conflict with current beliefs are often judged to have defects. Editors can use procedures to encourage the publication of papers with innovative findings such as invited papers, (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 16 citations
'Peer review' culture.Dr Malcolm Atkinson - 2001 - Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2):193-204.details A relatively high incidence of unsatisfactory review decisions is widely recognised and acknowledged as ‘the peer review problem’. Factors contributing to this problem are identified and examined. Specific examples of unreasonable rejection are considered. It is concluded that weaknesses of the ‘peer review’ system are significant and that they are well known or readily recognisable but that necessary counter-measures are not always enforced. Careful management is necessary to discount hollow opinion or error in review comment. Review and referee functions should (...) be quite separate. (shrink) Download Export citation Bookmark 5 citations

1