Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Reliability, fairness, objectivity and other inappropriate goals in peer review.John C. Bailar - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):137-138.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Toward openness and fairness in the review process.Byron P. Rourke - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):161-161.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • 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.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • 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.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   36 citations  
  • On peer review: “We have met the enemy and he is us”.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):205-205.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   37 citations  
  • Reflections from the peer review mirror.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):167-186.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Confusion between reviewer reliability and wise editorial and funding decisions.Charles A. Kiesler - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):151-152.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Peer review: Agreement and disagreement. [REVIEW]Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1996 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19 (3):534-536.
    Rl In response to Somit & Peterson's call for multiple journal manuscript submissions, and consistent with Cicchetti (1991a and 1991b), counterarguments are presented. The policy for multiple submissions is difficult to defend scientifically ana would place an unwarranted burden on both reviewers and journal editors. As such the policy is again rejected. R2 As earlier hypothesized, referee agreement on manuscripts submitted to a major journal in chemistry was significantly higher for acceptance than for rejection. This is consistent with the high (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation