- Peer review and the structure of knowledge.Marian Blissett - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):203-204.details
|
|
Review bias: Positive or negative, good or bad?Russell G. Geen - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):211-211.details
|
|
Authorship and manuscript reviewing: The risk of bias.Lois DeBakey - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):208-209.details
|
|
Editorial responsibilities in manuscript review.Rick Crandall - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):207-208.details
|
|
Criterion problems in journal review practices.John D. Cone - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):206-207.details
|
|
Manuscript evaluation by journal referees and editors: Randomness or bias?Andrew M. Colman - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):205-206.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
|
|
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
|
|
Barriers to scientific contributions: The author's formula.J. Scott Armstrong - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):197-199.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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
Rejecting published work: Similar fate for fiction.Chuck Ross - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):236-236.details
|
|
When will the editors start to edit?Leonard D. Goodstein - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):212-213.details
|
|
Peer review in the physical sciences: An editor's view.William M. Honig - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):216-217.details
|
|
Improving research on and policies for peer-review practices.Richard M. Perloff & Robert Perloff - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):232-233.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
|
|
Biases, decisions and auctorial rebuttal in the peer-review process.David S. Palermo - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):230-231.details
|
|
2004: A scenario of peer review in the future.Alan L. Porter - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):233-234.details
|
|
The quandary of manuscript reviewing.Grover J. Whitehurst - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):241-242.details
|
|
Referee report on an earlier draft of Peters and Ceci's target article.William A. Scott - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):238-238.details
|
|
Judging document content versus social functions of refereeing: Possible and impossible tasks.Belver C. Griffith - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):214-215.details
|
|
Competency testing for reviewers and editors.Rosalyn S. Yalow - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):244-245.details
|
|
Reliability and bias in peer-review practices.Robert Rosenthal - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):235-236.details
|
|
Making the plausible implausible: A favorable review of Peters and Ceci's target article.Jason Millman - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):225-226.details
|
|
Reliability and validity of peer review.David Zeaman - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):245-245.details
|
|
Peer reviewing: Improve or be rejected.Michael J. A. Howe - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):218-219.details
|
|
Peer review: Prediction of the future or judgment of the past?Richard T. Louttit - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):219-220.details
|
|
Experimenter and reviewer bias.Joseph C. Witt & Michael J. Hannafin - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):243-244.details
|
|
Bias, incompetence, or bad management?John Ziman - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):245-246.details
|
|
Reviewer reliability: Confusing random error with systematic error or bias.Stanley Presser - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):234-235.details
|
|
Rejection, rebuttal, revision: Some flexible features of peer review.Donald B. Rubin - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):236-237.details
|
|
The journal article review process as a game of chance.Norval D. Glenn - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):211-212.details
|
|