Peer review: Selecting the best science [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):11-17 (1997)
The major challenge facing today’s biomedical researchers is the increasing competition for available funds. The competitive review process, through which the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards grants, is built upon review by a committee of expert scientists. The NIH is firmly committed to ensuring that its peer review system is fair and objective.
|Keywords||peer review conflicts of interest confidentiality funding decisions|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Arthur Stamps Iii (1997). Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
Arthur Stamps (1997). Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
Similar books and articles
Robin Hanson (1995). Appendix. Comparing Peer Review and Information Prizes: A Possible Economics Experiment. Social Epistemology 9 (1):49-55.
Wendy Lipworth, Ian Kerridge, Stacy Carter & Miles Little (2011). Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):267-280.
Susan Haack (2007). Peer Review and Publication: Lessons for Lawyers. Stetson Law Review 36 (3).
Malcolm Atkinson (2001). 'Peer Review' Culture. Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2):193-204.
Sivaramjani Thambisetty & Kartik Kumaramangalam, Peer-Review and Patents: Why the Goose That Lays the Golden Egg is a Red Herring.
Arthur E. Stamps (1997). Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):3-10.
Domenic V. Cicchetti (1997). Referees, Editors, and Publication Practices: Improving the Reliability and Usefulness of the Peer Review System. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):51-62.
Leigh Turner (2003). Promoting F.A.I.T.H. In Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
Ashok K. Vijh (1996). Reflections on Peer Review Practices in Committees Selecting Laureates for Prestigious Awards and Prizes: Some Relevant and Irrelevant Criteria. Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (4):389-394.
Ronald N. Kostoff (1997). The Principles and Practices of Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #154,563 of 1,410,108 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #107,970 of 1,410,108 )
How can I increase my downloads?