Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction.Arthur E. Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):3-10.
    Peer review is a topic of considerable concern to many researchers, and there is a correspondingly large body of research on the topic. This issue of Science and Engineering Ethics presents recent work on peer review that is both grounded in empirical science and is applicable to policy decisions. This research raises two basic questions; how does current peer review operate, and how can it be improved? Topics addressed include descriptions of how peer review is used in Federal agencies. whether (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Social Biases and Solutions for Procedural Objectivity.L. E. E. J. & CHRISTIAN D. SCHUNN - 2011 - Hypatia 26 (2):352-373.
    An empirically sensitive formulation of the norms of transformative criticism must recognize that even public and shared standards of evaluation can be implemented in ways that unintentionally perpetuate and reproduce forms of social bias that are epistemically detrimental. Helen Longino's theory can explain and redress such social bias by treating peer evaluations as hypotheses based on data and by requiring a kind of perspectival diversity that bears, not on the content of the community's knowledge claims, but on the beliefs and (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant?Serge P. J. M. Horbach & Willem Halffman - forthcoming - Minerva:1-23.
    Peer review of journal submissions has become one of the most important pillars of quality management in academic publishing. Because of growing concerns with the quality and effectiveness of the system, a host of enthusiastic innovators has proposed and experimented with new procedures and technologies. However, little is known about whether these innovations manage to convince other journal editors. This paper will address open questions regarding the implementation of new review procedures, the occurrence rate of various peer review procedures and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review.Arthur E. Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
    This paper presents a framework that editors, peer reviewers, and authors can use to identify and resolve efficiently disputes that arise during peer review in scientific journals. The framework is called a scientific dialectical brief. In this framework, differences among authors and reviewers are formatted into specific assertions and the support each party provides for its position. A literature review suggests that scientists use five main types of support; empirical data, reasoning, speculation, feelings, and status. It is suggested that the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Stop Drinking the Kool-Aid: The Academic Journal Review Process in the Social Sciences Is Broken, Let’s Fix It.Jeffrey Overall - 2015 - Journal of Academic Ethics 13 (3):277-289.
    Rooted in altruism theory, the purpose of the double-blind academic journal peer-review process is to: assess the quality of scientific research, minimize the potential for nepotism, and; advance the standards of research through high-quality, constructive feedback. However, considering the limited, if any, public recognition and monetary incentives that referees receive for reviewing manuscripts, academics are often reluctant to squander their limited time toward peer reviewing manuscripts. If they do accept such invitations, referees, at times, do not invest the appropriate time (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Normal Accidents of Expertise.Stephen Turner - 2010 - Minerva 48 (3):239-258.
    Charles Perrow used the term normal accidents to characterize a type of catastrophic failure that resulted when complex, tightly coupled production systems encountered a certain kind of anomalous event. These were events in which systems failures interacted with one another in a way that could not be anticipated, and could not be easily understood and corrected. Systems of the production of expert knowledge are increasingly becoming tightly coupled. Unlike classical science, which operated with a long time horizon, many current forms (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Pluralism and Peer Review in Philosophy.J. Katzav & K. Vaesen - 2017 - Philosophers' Imprint 17.
    Recently, mainstream philosophy journals have tended to implement more and more stringent forms of peer review, probably in an attempt to prevent editorial decisions that are based on factors other than quality. Against this trend, we propose that journals should relax their standards of acceptance, as well as be less restrictive about whom is to decide what is admitted into the debate. We start by arguing, partly on the basis of the history of peer review in the journal Mind, that (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Prediction Markets for Science: Is the Cure Worse Than the Disease?Michael Thicke - 2017 - Social Epistemology 31 (5):451-467.
    Prediction markets, which trade contracts based on the results of predictions, have been remarkably successful in predicting the results of political events. A number of proposals have been made to extend prediction markets to scientific questions, and some small-scale science prediction markets have been implemented. Advocates for science prediction markets argue that they could alleviate problems in science such as bias in peer review and epistemically unjustified consensus. I argue that bias in peer review and epistemically unjustified consensuses are genuine (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Communism and the Incentive to Share in Science.Remco Heesen - 2017 - Philosophy of Science 84 (4):698-716.
    The communist norm requires that scientists widely share the results of their work. Where did this norm come from, and how does it persist? Michael Strevens provides a partial answer to these questions by showing that scientists should be willing to sign a social contract that mandates sharing. However, he also argues that it is not in an individual credit-maximizing scientist's interest to follow this norm. I argue against Strevens that individual scientists can rationally conform to the communist norm, even (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • A Kuhnian Critique of Psychometric Research on Peer Review.Carole J. Lee - 2012 - Philosophy of Science 79 (5):859-870.
    Psychometrically oriented researchers construe low inter-rater reliability measures for expert peer reviewers as damning for the practice of peer review. I argue that this perspective overlooks different forms of normatively appropriate disagreement among reviewers. Of special interest are Kuhnian questions about the extent to which variance in reviewer ratings can be accounted for by normatively appropriate disagreements about how to interpret and apply evaluative criteria within disciplines during times of normal science. Until these empirical-cum-philosophical analyses are done, it will remain (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • From Manuscript Evaluation to Article Valuation: The Changing Technologies of Journal Peer Review.David Pontille & Didier Torny - 2015 - Human Studies 38 (1):57-79.
    Born in the 17th century, journal peer review is an extremely diverse technology, constantly torn between two often incompatible goals: the validation of manuscripts conceived as a collective industrial-like reproducible process performed to assert scientific statements, and the dissemination of articles considered as a means to spur scientific discussion, raising controversies, and civically challenging a state of knowledge. Such a situation is particularly conducive to clarifying the processes of valuation and evaluation in journal peer review. In this article, such processes (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Now That We Know How Low the Reliability is, What Shall We Do?Kurt Salzinger - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):162-162.
  • On Not Doing the Papers of Great Scientists.Nathan Reingold - 1987 - British Journal for the History of Science 20 (1):29-38.
    Two analogies are at the foundation of editions of writings of scientists, technologists and physicians. Both are exemplified in the collection of ‘works’, texts of printed finished versions of contributions. The literary analogy is that of authorship, of the creation of a significant assemblage of words and other symbols. Assemblages of monographs and articles of a scientist are functionally no different than comparable arrays of the writings of theologians, philosophers, poets, novelists and historians.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Reflections From the Peer Review Mirror.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):167-186.
  • What to Do About Peer Review: Is the Cure Worse Than the Disease?Thomas R. Zentall - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):166-167.
  • Do Peer Reviewers Really Agree More on Rejections Than Acceptances? A Random-Agreement Benchmark Says They Do Not.Gerald S. Wasserman - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):165-166.
  • Chairman's Action: The Importance of Executive Decisions in Peer Review.Peter Tyrer - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):164-165.
  • Disagreement Among Journal Reviewers: No Cause for Undue Alarm.Lawrence J. Stricker - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):163-164.
  • In Praise of Randomness.Peter H. Schönemann - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):162-163.
  • Toward Openness and Fairness in the Review Process.Byron P. Rourke - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):161-161.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Some Indices of the Reliability of Peer Review.Robert Rosenthal - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):160-161.
  • Is Unreliability in Peer Review Harmful?Henry L. Roediger - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):159-160.
  • The Process of Peer Review: Unanswered Questions.Linda D. Nelson - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):158-159.
  • Reflections on the Peer Review Process.Herbert W. Marsh & Samuel Ball - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):157-158.
  • Justice, Efficiency and Epistemology in the Peer Review of Scientific Manuscripts.Michael J. Mahoney - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):157-157.
  • Should the Blinded Lead the Blinded?Stephen P. Lock - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):156-157.
  • Why is the Reliability of Peer Review so Low?Donald Laming - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):154-156.
  • Do We Really Want More “Reliable” Reviewers?Helena Chmura Kraemer - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):152-154.
  • Confusion Between Reviewer Reliability and Wise Editorial and Funding Decisions.Charles A. Kiesler - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):151-152.
  • Referee Agreement in Context.Lowell L. Hargens - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):150-151.
  • Is There an Alternative to Peer Review?Richard Greene - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):149-150.
  • Replication, Reliability and Peer Review: A Case Study.Michael E. Gorman - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):149-149.
  • On Forecasting Validity and Finessing Reliability.J. Barnard Gilmore - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):148-149.
  • Peer Review is Not Enough: Editors Must Work with Librarians to Ensure Access to Research.Steve Fuller - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):147-148.
  • Journal Availability and the Quality of Published Research.Jack M. Fletcher - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):146-147.
  • When Nonreliability of Reviews Indicates Solid Science.Douglas Lee Eckberg - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):145-146.
  • Different Rates of Agreement on Acceptance and Rejection: A Statistical Artifact?Marilyn E. Demorest - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):144-145.
  • Consensus and the Reliability of Peer-Review Evaluations.Stephen Cole - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):140-141.
  • Does Group Discussion Contribute Reliability of Complex Judgments?Patricia Cohen - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):139-140.
  • Peer Review: Explicit Criteria and Training Can Help.Fred Delcomyn - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):144-144.
  • What Should Be Done Improve Reviewing?Rick Crandall - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):143-143.
  • The Predictive Validity of Peer Review: A Neglected Issue.Robert F. Bornstein - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):138-139.
  • Reliability, Fairness, Objectivity and Other Inappropriate Goals in Peer Review.John C. Bailar - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):137-138.
  • Evaluating Scholarly Works: How Many Reviewers? How Much Anonymity?John D. Cone - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):142-142.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • 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.
  • Unreliable Peer Review: Causes and Cures of Human Misery.Andrew M. Colman - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):141-142.
  • Peer Review: An Unflattering Picture.Kenneth M. Adams - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):135-136.
  • 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.
  • The Morality of Reading in a Digitizing World.Brian William Richardson - unknown
    Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2005.
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Prehistory of Peer Review: Religious Blueprints From the Hartlib Circle.Brent Tibor Ranalli - 2011 - Spontaneous Generations 5 (1):12-18.
    The conventional history of modern scientific peer review begins with the censorship practices of the Royal Society of London in the 1660s. This article traces one strand of the “prehistory” of peer review in the writings of John Amos Comenius and other members of the Hartlib circle, a precursor group to the Royal Society of London. These reformers appear to have first envisioned peer review as a technique for theologians, only later proposing to apply it to philosophy. The importance of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark