Thanks to Our Reviewers in 2013! A scientific journal’s greatest responsibility is to ensure that all contributions accepted for publication are rigorously but fairly reviewed. We gratefully acknowledge the valued support of all scientists who have reviewed papers for this journal in 2013 [Book Review]

Disputatio (2014)

Abstract This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 59,759
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Editorial: Rights and Procreative Liberty.Doris Schroeder - 2007 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16 (3):325-325.
Reviewer Acknowledgement 2013.Fernando Marques - 2014 - BMC Medical Ethics 15 (1):6.
Submission Reviewers for Volume 9, 2013.D. P. Dash - 2013 - Journal of Research Practice 9 (2).
An Economic Model of Scientific Rules.José Luis Ferreira & Jesús Zamora-bonilla - 2006 - Economics and Philosophy 22 (2):191-212.
Addiction and Responsibility. [REVIEW]Joanna Korman - 2014 - Philosophical Psychology 27 (6):930-934.
Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review.Arthur E. Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-01-13

Total views
7 ( #1,019,249 of 2,432,579 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #465,136 of 2,432,579 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes