Results for 'Peer Ederer'

997 found
Order:
  1.  5
    7 The Economic Sustainability Indicator.Peer Ederer, Philipp Schuller & Stephan Willms - 2006 - In Tremmel J. (ed.), The Handbook of Intergenerational Justice. Edward Elgar. pp. 129.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  2.  44
    Literature, Imagination, and Human Rights.Willie van Peer - 1995 - Philosophy and Literature 19 (2):276-291.
  3. A Code of Conduct for Peer Reviewers and Editors.Steven James Bartlett - 2019 - Willamette University Faculty Research Website.
    In the past few decades, peer review has come to dominate virtually all professionally respectable academic and scientific publications. However, despite its near-universal acceptance, no code of conduct has been developed to which peer reviewers and their editors are encouraged to adhere. This paper proposes such a code of conduct.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. 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.
    A growing interest in and concern about the adequacy and fairness of modern peer-review practices in publication and funding are apparent across a wide range of scientific disciplines. Although questions about reliability, accountability, reviewer bias, and competence have been raised, there has been very little direct research on these variables.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   177 citations  
  5.  38
    Moral Peer Disagreement and the Limits of Higher-Order Evidence.Marco Tiozzo - forthcoming - In Michael Klenk (ed.), Higher-Order Evidence and Moral Epistemology. Routledge.
    Abstract. This paper argues that the “Argument from Moral Peer Disagreement” fails to make a case for widespread moral skepticism. The main reason for this is that the argument rests on a too strong assumption about the normative significance of peer disagreement (and higher-order evidence more generally). In order to demonstrate this, I distinguish two competing ways in which one might explain higher-order defeat. According to what I call the “Objective Defeat Explanation” it is the mere possession of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  75
    Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin - 2013 - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.
    Research on bias in peer review examines scholarly communication and funding processes to assess the epistemic and social legitimacy of the mechanisms by which knowledge communities vet and self-regulate their work. Despite vocal concerns, a closer look at the empirical and methodological limitations of research on bias raises questions about the existence and extent of many hypothesized forms of bias. In addition, the notion of bias is predicated on an implicit ideal that, once articulated, raises questions about the normative (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   30 citations  
  7.  36
    Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.David B. Resnik & Susan A. Elmore - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (1):169-188.
    A growing body of literature has identified potential problems that can compromise the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review, including inadequate review, inconsistent reviewer reports, reviewer biases, and ethical transgressions by reviewers. We examine the evidence concerning these problems and discuss proposed reforms, including double-blind and open review. Regardless of the outcome of additional research or attempts at reforming the system, it is clear that editors are the linchpin of peer review, since they make decisions that (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  8. Is Peer Review a Good Idea?Remco Heesen & Liam Kofi Bright - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axz029.
    Prepublication peer review should be abolished. We consider the effects that such a change will have on the social structure of science, paying particular attention to the changed incentive structure and the likely effects on the behaviour of individual scientists. We evaluate these changes from the perspective of epistemic consequentialism. We find that where the effects of abolishing prepublication peer review can be evaluated with a reasonable level of confidence based on presently available evidence, they are either positive (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  9. Peer Review System: A Golden Standard for Publications Process.Shamima Parvin Lasker - 2018 - Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 9 (1):13-23.
    Peer review process helps in evaluating and validating of research that is published in the journals. U.S. Office of Research Integrity reported that data fraudulence was found to be involved in 94% cases of misconduct from 228 identified articles between 1994–2012. If fraud in published article are significantly as high as reported, the question arise in mind, were these articles peer reviewed? Another report said that the reviewers failed to detect 16 cases of fabricated article of Jan Hendrick (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10.  60
    Commensuration Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (5):1272-1283,.
    To arrive at their final evaluation of a manuscript or grant proposal, reviewers must convert a submission’s strengths and weaknesses for heterogeneous peer review criteria into a single metric of quality or merit. I identify this process of commensuration as the locus for a new kind of peer review bias. Commensuration bias illuminates how the systematic prioritization of some peer review criteria over others permits and facilitates problematic patterns of publication and funding in science. Commensuration bias also (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  11. The Influence of Unethical Peer Behavior on Observers' Unethical Behavior: A Social Cognitive Perspective. [REVIEW]Michael J. O’Fallon & Kenneth D. Butterfield - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 109 (2):117-131.
    The relationship between unethical peer behavior and observers’ unethical behavior traditionally has been examined from a social learning perspective. We employ two additional theoretical lenses, social identity theory and social comparison theory, each of which offers additional insight into this relationship. Data from 600 undergraduate business students in two universities provide support for all the three perspectives, suggesting that unethical behavior is influenced by social learning, social identity, and social comparison processes. Implications for managers and future research are discussed.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  12.  60
    Power of Networks and Peer Pressure: An Analysis of Slum Sanitation Program in Mumbai.Vivek Anand Asokan - 2017 - International Journal Sustainable Future for Human Security 5 (2):11-20.
    With the advent of the “Clean India” campaign in India, a renewed focus on cleanliness has started, with a special focus on sanitation. There have been efforts in the past to provide sanitation related services. However, there were several challenges in provisioning. Provision of sanitation is a public health imperative given increased instances of antimicrobial resistance in India. This paper focuses on sanitation provisioning in the city of Mumbai, especially in the slums of Mumbai. The paper compares and contrasts different (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. A Game-Theoretic Approach to Peer Disagreement.Remco Heesen & Pieter van der Kolk - 2016 - Erkenntnis 81 (6):1345-1368.
    In this paper we propose and analyze a game-theoretic model of the epistemology of peer disagreement. In this model, the peers' rationality is evaluated in terms of their probability of ending the disagreement with a true belief. We find that different strategies---in particular, one based on the Steadfast View and one based on the Conciliatory View---are rational depending on the truth-sensitivity of the individuals involved in the disagreement. Interestingly, the Steadfast and the Conciliatory Views can even be rational simultaneously (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  14. Peer Disagreement and the Bridge Principle.Marc-Kevin Daoust - forthcoming - Topoi:1-11.
    One explanation of rational peer disagreement is that agents find themselves in an epistemically permissive situation. In fact, some authors have suggested that, while evidence could be impermissive at the intrapersonal level, it is permissive at the interpersonal level. In this paper, I challenge such a claim. I will argue that, at least in cases of rational disagreement under full disclosure, there cannot be more interpersonal epistemically permissive situations than there are intrapersonal epistemically permissive situations. In other words, with (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15. Peer Disagreement and Two Principles of Rational Belief.Theodore J. Everett - 2015 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 93 (2):273-286.
    This paper presents a new solution to the problem of peer disagreement that distinguishes two principles of rational belief, here called probability and autonomy. When we discover that we disagree with peers, there is one sense in which we rationally ought to suspend belief, and another in which we rationally ought to retain our original belief. In the first sense, we aim to believe what is most probably true according to our total evidence, including testimony from peers and authorities. (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  16.  26
    An Empirical Evaluation of the Effect of Peer and Managerial Ethical Behaviors and the Ethical Predispositions of Prospective Advertising Employees.Nancy K. Keith, Charles E. Pettijohn & Melissa S. Burnett - 2003 - Journal of Business Ethics 48 (3):251-265.
    An advertising firm''s ethical culture (as defined by the firm''s managerial and peer ethical behaviors) may affect the employees'' comfort levels and ethical behaviors. In this research, scenarios were used to describe advertising firms with various ethical cultures. Respondents'' perceived comfort levels in working for the firms described in the scenarios and the respondents'' behavioral intentions when faced with various advertising situations were assessed. Results of the study indicate that peer ethical behavior exerts a strong influence on the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  17.  50
    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 (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  18. Peer Disagreement, Rational Requirements, and Evidence of Evidence as Evidence Against.Andrew Reisner - 2016 - In Pedro Schmechtig & Martin Grajner (eds.), Epistemic Reasons, Norms and Goals. De Gruyter. pp. 95-114.
    This chapter addresses an ambiguity in some of the literature on rational peer disagreement about the use of the term 'rational'. In the literature 'rational' is used to describe a variety of normative statuses related to reasons, justification, and reasoning. This chapter focuses most closely on the upshot of peer disagreement for what is rationally required of parties to a peer disagreement. This follows recent work in theoretical reason which treats rationality as a system of requirements among (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  19.  21
    Conflict(s) of Interest in Peer Review: Its Origins and Possible Solutions.Anton Oleinik - 2013 - Science and Engineering Ethics (1):1-21.
    Scientific communication takes place at two registers: first, interactions with colleagues in close proximity—members of a network, school of thought or circle; second, depersonalised transactions among a potentially unlimited number of scholars can be involved (e.g., author and readers). The interference between the two registers in the process of peer review produces a drift toward conflict of interest. Three particular cases of peer review are differentiated: journal submissions, grant applications and applications for tenure. The current conflict of interest (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  20.  96
    Peer Review — An Insult to the Reader and to Society: Milton's View.Steven James Bartlett - 2017 - Willamette University Faculty Research Website.
    Pre-publication certification through peer review stands in need of philosophical examination. In this paper, philosopher-psychologist Steven James Bartlett recalls the arguments marshalled four hundred years ago by English poet John Milton against restraint of publication by the "gatekeepers of publication," AKA today's peer reviewers.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  21.  81
    Nonconciliation in Peer Disagreement: Its Phenomenology and Its Rationality.David Henderson, Terry Horgan, Matjaz Potrc & Hannah Tierney - 2017 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 94 (1-2):194-225.
    The authors argue in favor of the “nonconciliation” (or “steadfast”) position concerning the problem of peer disagreement. Throughout the paper they place heavy emphasis on matters of phenomenology—on how things seem epistemically with respect to the net import of one’s available evidence vis-à-vis the disputed claim p, and on how such phenomenology is affected by the awareness that an interlocutor whom one initially regards as an epistemic peer disagrees with oneself about p. Central to the argument is a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  22. Using Peer Instruction to Teach Philosophy, Logic, and Critical Thinking.Sam Butchart, Toby Handfield & Greg Restall - 2009 - Teaching Philosophy 32 (1):1-40.
    Peer Instruction is a simple and effective technique you can use to make lectures more interactive, more engaging, and more effective learning experiences. Although well known in science and mathematics, the technique appears to be little known in the humanities. In this paper, we explain how Peer Instruction can be applied in philosophy lectures. We report the results from our own experience of using Peer Instruction in undergraduate courses in philosophy, formal logic, and critical thinking. We have (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  23.  95
    The Dedisciplining of Peer Review.Robert Frodeman & Adam Briggle - 2012 - Minerva 50 (1):3-19.
    The demand for greater public accountability is changing the nature of ex ante peer review at public science agencies worldwide. Based on a four year research project, this essay examines these changes through an analysis of the process of grant proposal review at two US public science agencies, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Weaving historical and conceptual narratives with analytical accounts, we describe the ways in which these two agencies struggle with the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  24.  34
    Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study.David B. Resnik, Christina Gutierrez-Ford & Shyamal Peddada - 2008 - Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (3):305-310.
    This article reports the results of an anonymous survey of researchers at a government research institution concerning their perceptions about ethical problems with journal peer review. Incompetent review was the most common ethical problem reported by the respondents, with 61.8% (SE = 3.3%) claiming to have experienced this at some point during peer review. Bias (50.5%, SE = 3.4%) was the next most common problem. About 22.7% (SE = 2.8%) of respondents said that a reviewer had required them (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  25. Peer Disagreement Under Multiple Epistemic Systems.Rogier De Langhe - 2013 - Synthese 190 (13):2547-2556.
    In a situation of peer disagreement, peers are usually assumed to share the same evidence. However they might not share the same evidence for the epistemic system used to process the evidence. This synchronic complication of the peer disagreement debate suggested by Goldman (In Feldman R, Warfield T (eds) (2010) Disagreement. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 187–215) is elaborated diachronically by use of a simulation. The Hegselmann–Krause model is extended to multiple epistemic systems and used to investigate the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  26.  25
    Review of the Ethics and Etiquettes of Time Management of Manuscript Peer Review. [REVIEW]Malhar N. Kumar - 2014 - Journal of Academic Ethics 12 (4):333-346.
    With the ever expanding array of professional journals, pressures on the peer review process have increased considerably. Unless editors and publishers recognize the need for improving the efficiency of the process, the future of traditional peer review may be at risk. This is a review of the studies that have followed up the suggestions made by Ingelfinger in 1974 for improvement of manuscript peer review. Implementation of changes has been slow, despite the abundance of literature that suggests (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  27.  38
    Peer Review and Innovation.Raymond Spier - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (1):99-108.
    Two important aspects of the relationship between peer review and innovation includes the acceptance of articles for publication in journals and the assessment of applications for grants for the funding of research work. While there are well-known examples of the rejection by journals of first choice of many papers that have radically changed the way we think about the world outside ourselves, such papers do get published eventually, however tortuous the process required. With grant applications the situation differs in (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  28.  43
    Ethical Issues in Journal Peer-Review.J. Angelo Corlett - 2005 - Journal of Academic Ethics 2 (4):355-366.
    In some recent articles, Dr. Leigh Turner [Doffing the Mask: Why Manuscript Reviewers Ought to Be Identifiable,” Journal of Academic Ethics, 1 (2003), pp. 41–48; “Promoting F.A.I.T.H. in Peer Review: Five Core Attributes in Effective Peer Review,” Journal of Academic Ethics, 1 (2003), pp. 181–188.] makes some rather critical observations regarding the processes of peer-review in academic journals. I shall note them in turn, note wherein I concur and wherein I disagree, and discuss some of Turner's suggestions (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  29.  52
    Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation.J. Scott Armstrong - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.
    This paper reviews the published empirical evidence concerning journal peer review consisting of 68 papers, all but three published since 1975. Peer review improves quality, but its use to screen papers has met with limited success. Current procedures to assure quality and fairness seem to discourage scientific advancement, especially important innovations, because findings that conflict with current beliefs are often judged to have defects. Editors can use procedures to encourage the publication of papers with innovative findings such as (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  30.  47
    Peer Review and Publication: Lessons for Lawyers.Susan Haack - 2007 - Stetson Law Review 36 (3).
    Peer review and publication is one of the factors proposed in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. as indicia of the reliability of scientific testimony. This Article traces the origins of the peer-review system, the process by which it became standard at scientific and medical journals, and the many roles it now plays. Additionally, the Author articulates the epistemological rationale for pre-publication peer-review and the inherent limitations of the system as a scientific quality-control mechanism. The Article explores (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  31.  33
    Examining the Impact of Dons Providing Peer Instruction for Academic Integrity: Dons' and Students' Perspectives. [REVIEW]Lucia Zivcakova, Eileen Wood, Gail Forsyth, Navinder Dhillon, Danielle Ball, Brittany Corolis, Amanda Coulas, Stephen Daniels, Joshua Hill, Anja Krstic, Amy Linseman & Marjan Petkovski - 2012 - Journal of Academic Ethics 10 (2):137-150.
    A peer instruction model was used whereby 78 residence dons (36 males, 42 females) provided instruction regarding academic integrity for 324 students (125 males, 196 females) under their supervision. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted to assess survey responses from both the dons and students regarding presentation content, quality, and learning. Overall, dons consistently identified information-based slides about academic integrity as the most important material for the presentations, indicating that fundamental information was needed. Although student ratings of the usefulness (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  32.  48
    Promoting F.A.I.T.H. In Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review. [REVIEW]Leigh Turner - 2003 - Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
    Peer review is an important component of scholarly research. Long a black box whose practical mechanisms were unknown to researchers and readers, peer review is increasingly facing demands for accountability and improvement. Numerous studies address empirical aspects of the peer review process. Much less consideration is typically given to normative dimensions of peer review. This paper considers what authors, editors, reviewers, and readers ought to expect from the peer review process. Integrity in the review process (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  33.  23
    Towards a Custom-Made Whistleblowing Policy. Using Grid-Group Cultural Theory to Match Policy Measures to Different Styles of Peer Reporting.Kim Loyens - 2013 - Journal of Business Ethics 114 (2):239-249.
    To be effective, whistleblowing policies should be adapted to the organisational culture. They need to be custom-made and not follow a one-size-fits-all logic, specifically when they are installed to stimulate responsible peer reporting, a highly sensitive and value-laden type of whistleblowing. This paper attempts to illustrate that grid-group cultural theory could help to construct a whistleblowing policy by linking reporting styles to the organisational culture. First, we will identify four types of policy measures that are hypothesized to be effective (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  34.  23
    Frequency and Type of Conflicts of Interest in the Peer Review of Basic Biomedical Research Funding Applications: Self-Reporting Versus Manual Detection.Stephen A. Gallo, Michael Lemaster & Scott R. Glisson - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (1):189-197.
    Despite the presumed frequency of conflicts of interest in scientific peer review, there is a paucity of data in the literature reporting on the frequency and type of conflicts that occur, particularly with regard to the peer review of basic science applications. To address this gap, the American Institute of Biological Sciences conducted a retrospective analysis of conflict of interest data from the peer review of 282 biomedical research applications via several onsite review panels. The overall conflicted-ness (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  35.  60
    The Principles and Practices of Peer Review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
    The principles and practices of research peer review are described. While the principles are fundamentally generic and apply to peer review across the full spectrum of performing institutions as well as to manuscript/proposal/program peer review, the focus of this paper is peer review of proposed and ongoing programs in federal agencies. The paper describes desireable characteristics and important intangible factors in successful peer review. Also presented is a heuristic protocol for the conduct of successful (...) review research evaluations and impact assessments. Problems with peer review are then outlined, followed by examples of peer review of proposed and existing programs in selected federal agencies. Some peer review variants, such as the Science Court, are described, and then research requirements to improve peer review are discussed. (shrink)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  36.  81
    Signs of Resistance: Peer Learning of Sign Languages Within 'Oral' Schools for the Deaf.Hannah Anglin-Jaffe - 2013 - Studies in Philosophy and Education 32 (3):261-271.
    This article explores the role of the Deaf child as peer educator. In schools where sign languages were banned, Deaf children became the educators of their Deaf peers in a number of contexts worldwide. This paper analyses how this peer education of sign language worked in context by drawing on two examples from boarding schools for the deaf in Nicaragua and Thailand. The argument is advanced that these practices constituted a child-led oppositional pedagogy. A connection is drawn to (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  37.  36
    Peer Review: Selecting the Best Science. [REVIEW]Wendy Baldwin & Belinda Seto - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):11-17.
    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.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  38.  27
    'Peer Review' Culture.Dr Malcolm Atkinson - 2001 - Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2):193-204.
    A relatively high incidence of unsatisfactory review decisions is widely recognised and acknowledged as ‘the peer review problem’. Factors contributing to this problem are identified and examined. Specific examples of unreasonable rejection are considered. It is concluded that weaknesses of the ‘peer review’ system are significant and that they are well known or readily recognisable but that necessary counter-measures are not always enforced. Careful management is necessary to discount hollow opinion or error in review comment. Review and referee (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  39.  29
    Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process.Wendy Lipworth, Ian H. Kerridge, Stacy M. Carter & Miles Little - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):267-280.
    Peer review of manuscripts for biomedical journals has become a subject of intense ethical debate. One of the most contentious issues is whether or not peer review should be anonymous. This study aimed to generate a rich, empirically-grounded understanding of the values held by journal editors and peer reviewers with a view to informing journal policy. Qualitative methods were used to carry out an inductive analysis of biomedical reviewers’ and editors’ values. Data was derived from in-depth, open-ended (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  40.  62
    Peer Review Versus Editorial Review and Their Role in Innovative Science.Georg Steinhauser, Wolfram Adlassnig, Jesaka Ahau Risch, Serena Anderlini, Petros Arguriou, Aaron Zolen Armendariz, William Bains, Clark Baker, Martin Barnes, Jonathan Barnett, Michael Baumgartner, Thomas Baumgartner, Charles A. Bendall, Yvonne S. Bender, Max Bichler, Teresa Biermann, Ronaldo Bini, Eduardo Blanco, John Bleau, Anthony Brink, Darin Brown, Christopher Burghuber, Roy Calne, Brian Carter, Cesar Castaño, Peter Celec, Maria Eugenia Celis, Nicky Clarke, David Cockrell, David Collins, Brian Coogan, Jennifer Craig, Cal Crilly, David Crowe, Antonei B. Csoka, Chaza Darwich, Topiciprin del Kebos, Michele DeRinaldi, Bongani Dlamini, Tomasz Drewa, Michael Dwyer, Fabienne Eder, Raúl Ehrichs de Palma, Dean Esmay, Catherine Evans Rött, Christopher Exley, Robin Falkov, Celia Ingrid Farber, William Fearn, Sophie Felsmann, Jarl Flensmark, Andrew K. Fletcher, Michaela Foster, Kostas N. Fountoulakis, Jim Fouratt, Jesus Garcia Blanca, Manuel Garrido Sotelo, Florian Gittler, Georg Gittler & Go - 2012 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 33 (5):359-376.
    Peer review is a widely accepted instrument for raising the quality of science. Peer review limits the enormous unstructured influx of information and the sheer amount of dubious data, which in its absence would plunge science into chaos. In particular, peer review offers the benefit of eliminating papers that suffer from poor craftsmanship or methodological shortcomings, especially in the experimental sciences. However, we believe that peer review is not always appropriate for the evaluation of controversial hypothetical (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  41.  34
    Referees, Editors, and Publication Practices: Improving the Reliability and Usefulness of the Peer Review System.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):51-62.
    The documented low levels of reliability of the peer review process present a serious challenge to editors who must often base their publication decisions on conflicting referee recommendations. The purpose of this article is to discuss this process and examine ways to produce a more reliable and useful peer review system.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  42.  20
    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, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  43.  9
    Evidence for the Effectiveness of Peer Review.Professor Robert H. Fletcher & Professor Suzanne W. Fletcher - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):35-50.
    Scientific editors’ policies, including peer review, are based mainly on tradition and belief. Do they actually achieve their desired effects, the selection of the best manuscripts and improvement of those published? Editorial decisions have important consequences—to investigators, the scientific community, and all who might benefit from correct information or be harmed by misleading research results. These decisions should be judged not just by intentions of reviewers and editors but also by the actual consequences of their actions. A small but (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  44.  26
    Investigating Perceptions of Students to a Peer-Based Academic Integrity Presentation Provided by Residence Dons.Lucia Zivcakova, Eileen Wood, Gail Forsyth, Martin Zivcak, Joshua Shapiro, Amanda Coulas, Amy Linseman, Brittany Mascioli, Stephen Daniels & Valentin Angardi - 2014 - Journal of Academic Ethics 12 (2):89-99.
    This study investigated students’ perceptions following a prepared, common presentation regarding academic integrity provided by their residence dons. This peer instruction study utilized both quantitative and qualitative analyses of survey data within a pre-test post-test design. Overall, students reported gains in knowledge, as well as confidence in their knowledge of academic integrity. Notably, students reported increases in their personal value for academic integrity after participating in the presentations. Overall, the quality and content of the presentations were judged positively, and (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  45.  86
    Notes on Italian Philosophy, Peer-Reviews and “la Corruttela”.Annalisa Coliva - 2010 - Philosophia 38 (1):29-39.
    The paper offers a critical review of Roberto Farneti’s paper a minor philosophy. The state of the art of philosophical scholarship in Italy , recently published in Philosophia. It is argued that overall the status and interest of philosophy as practiced nowadays in Italy is less disappointing than Farneti makes out. It is also maintained that submitting papers to peer-refereed international journals can help cure the moral and sociological disease that besets the Italian academia, but that, as such, it (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  46.  30
    Rational Peer Disagreement Upon Sufficient Evidence: Leaving the Track to Truth?Frieder Bögner, Markus Seidel, Konstantin Schnieder & Thomas Meyer - 2018 - In Ludger Jansen & Paul Näger (eds.), Peter van Inwagen. Materialism, Free Will and God. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 17-39.
    In this paper, we will discuss Peter van Inwagen’s contribution to the epistemological debate about revealed peer disagreement. Roughly, this debate focuses on situations in which at least two participants disagree on a certain proposition based on the same evidence. This leads to the problem of how one should react rationally when peer disagreement is revealed. Van Inwagen, as we will show, discusses four possible reactions, all of which he rejects as unsatisfying. Our proposal will be to point (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47.  16
    Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction.Arthur E. Stamps Iii - 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; (a) how does current peer review operate, and (b) how can it be improved? Topics addressed include descriptions of how peer review (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  48.  30
    Why Be My Colleague’s Keeper? Moral Justifications for Peer Review.Joe Cain - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (4):531-540.
    Justifying ethical practices is no easy task. This paper considers moral justifications for peer review so as to persuade even the sceptical individualist. Two avenues provide a foundation for that justification: self-interest and social contract theory. A wider notion of “interest” permits the self-interest approach to justify not only submitting one’s own work to peer review but also removing oneself momentarily from the production of primary knowledge to serve as a rigorous, independent, and honest referee. The contract approach (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  49.  11
    Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review.Arthur Stamps Iii - 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 (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  50.  19
    Christianity, Epistemic Peer Disagreement, and the Abortion Debate.Michael S. Jones & John B. Molinari Jr - 2018 - Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 17 (49):32-45.
    The question of the morality of abortion has long been the subject of intense, sometimes acrimonious debate. Even people within the same religious or philosophical tradition often disagree on the issue. For example, there are Christians who are “pro- choice” and there are Christians who are “pro-life.” Both sides marshal biblical, theological, and philosophical arguments in support of their positions. The substance of the abortion debate seems to reduce to one tricky question: when does personhood begin? Christian experts in various (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 997