Results for 'Rooyintan Pesh Peer'

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  8
    Islam, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism.Navras Jaat Aafreedi, Raihanah Abdullah, Zuraidah Abdullah, Iqbal S. Akhtar, Blain Auer, Jehan Bagli, Parvez M. Bajan, Carole A. Barnsley, Michael Bednar, Clinton Bennett, Purushottama Bilimoria, Leila Chamankhah, Jamsheed K. Choksy, Golam Dastagir, Albert De Jong, Amanullah De Sondy, Arthur Dudney, Janis Esots, Ilyse R. Morgenstein Fuerst, Jonathan Goldstein, Rebecca Ruth Gould, Thomas K. Gugler, Vivek Gupta, Andrew Halladay, Sowkot Hossain, A. R. M. Imtiyaz, Brannon Ingram, Ayesha A. Irani, Barbara C. Johnson, Ramiyar P. Karanjia, Pasha M. Khan, Shenila Khoja-Moolji, Søren Christian Lassen, Riyaz Latif, Bruce B. Lawrence, Joel Lee, Matthew Long, Iik A. Mansurnoor, Anubhuti Maurya, Sharmina Mawani, Seyed Mohamed Mohamed Mazahir, Mohamed Mihlar, Colin P. Mitchell, Yasien Mohamed, A. Azfar Moin, Rafiqul Islam Molla, Anjoom Mukadam, Faiza Mushtaq, Sajjad Nejatie, James R. Newell, Moin Ahmad Nizami, Michael O’Neal, Erik S. Ohlander, Jesse S. Palsetia, Farid Panjwani & Rooyintan Pesh Peer - 2018 - Springer Verlag.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2.  5
    Islam, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism.Navras Jaat Aafreedi, Raihanah Abdullah, Zuraidah Abdullah, Iqbal S. Akhtar, Blain Auer, Jehan Bagli, Parvez M. Bajan, Carole A. Barnsley, Michael Bednar, Clinton Bennett, Purushottama Bilimoria, Leila Chamankhah, Jamsheed K. Choksy, Golam Dastagir, Albert De Jong, Amanullah De Sondy, Arthur Dudney, Janis Esots, Ilyse R. Morgenstein Fuerst, Jonathan Goldstein, Rebecca Ruth Gould, Thomas K. Gugler, Vivek Gupta, Andrew Halladay, Sowkot Hossain, A. R. M. Imtiyaz, Brannon Ingram, Ayesha A. Irani, Barbara C. Johnson, Ramiyar P. Karanjia, Pasha M. Khan, Shenila Khoja-Moolji, Søren Christian Lassen, Riyaz Latif, Bruce B. Lawrence, Joel Lee, Matthew Long, Iik A. Mansurnoor, Anubhuti Maurya, Sharmina Mawani, Seyed Mohamed Mohamed Mazahir, Mohamed Mihlar, Colin P. Mitchell, Yasien Mohamed, A. Azfar Moin, Rafiqul Islam Molla, Anjoom Mukadam, Faiza Mushtaq, Sajjad Nejatie, James R. Newell, Moin Ahmad Nizami, Michael O’Neal, Erik S. Ohlander, Jesse S. Palsetia, Farid Panjwani & Rooyintan Pesh Peer - 2018 - Springer Verlag.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. Is Peer Review a Good Idea?Remco Heesen & Liam Kofi Bright - 2021 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72 (3):635-663.
    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   20 citations  
  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   192 citations  
  5. Peer disagreement and higher order evidence.Thomas Kelly - 2010 - In Alvin I. Goldman & Dennis Whitcomb (eds.), Social Epistemology: Essential Readings. Oxford University Press. pp. 183--217.
    My aim in this paper is to develop and defend a novel answer to a question that has recently generated a considerable amount of controversy. The question concerns the normative significance of peer disagreement. Suppose that you and I have been exposed to the same evidence and arguments that bear on some proposition: there is no relevant consideration which is available to you but not to me, or vice versa. For the sake of concreteness, we might picture.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   264 citations  
  6. Moral Peer Disagreement and the Limits of Higher-Order Evidence.Marco Tiozzo - 2020 - 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   2 citations  
  7. 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   9 citations  
  8.  56
    Peers Versus National Culture: An Analysis of Antecedents to Ethical Decision-making.James W. Westerman, Rafik I. Beekun, Yvonne Stedham & Jeanne Yamamura - 2007 - Journal of Business Ethics 75 (3):239-252.
    Given the recent ethics scandals in the United States, there has been a renewed focus on understanding the antecedents to ethical decision-making in the research literature. Since ethical norms and standards of behavior are not universally consistent, an individual’s choice of referent may exert a large influence on his/her ethical decision-making. This study used a social identity theory lens to empirically examine the relative influence of the macro- and micro-level variables of national culture and peers on an individual’s intention to (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   30 citations  
  9. 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   3 citations  
  10.  52
    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   6 citations  
  11. 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 (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  12.  46
    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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  13. Resolving Peer Disagreements Through Imprecise Probabilities.Lee Elkin & Gregory Wheeler - 2018 - Noûs 52 (2):260-278.
    Two compelling principles, the Reasonable Range Principle and the Preservation of Irrelevant Evidence Principle, are necessary conditions that any response to peer disagreements ought to abide by. The Reasonable Range Principle maintains that a resolution to a peer disagreement should not fall outside the range of views expressed by the peers in their dispute, whereas the Preservation of Irrelevant Evidence Principle maintains that a resolution strategy should be able to preserve unanimous judgments of evidential irrelevance among the peers. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   27 citations  
  14. 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   4 citations  
  15.  89
    Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science.Nicole Zwiren, Glenn Zuraw, Ian Young, Michael A. Woodley, Jennifer Finocchio Wolfe, Nick Wilson, Peter Weinberger, Manuel Weinberger, Christoph Wagner, Georg von Wintzigerode, Matt Vogel, Alex Villasenor, Shiloh Vermaak, Carlos A. Vega, Leo Varela, Tine van der Maas, Jennie van der Byl, Paul Vahur, Nicole Turner, Michaela Trimmel, Siro I. Trevisanato, Jack Tozer, Alison Tomlinson, Laura Thompson, David Tavares, Amhayes Tadesse, Johann Summhammer, Mike Sullivan, Carl Stryg, Christina Streli, James Stratford, Gilles St-Pierre, Karri Stokely, Joe Stokely, Reinhard Stindl, Martin Steppan, Johannes H. Sterba, Konstantin Steinhoff, Wolfgang Steinhauser, Marjorie Elizabeth Steakley, Chrislie J. Starr-Casanova, Mels Sonko, Werner F. Sommer, Daphne Anne Sole, Jildou Slofstra, John R. Skoyles, Florian Six, Sibusio Sithole, Beldeu Singh, Jolanta Siller-Matula, Kyle Shields, David Seppi, Laura Seegers, David Scott, Thomas Schwarzgruber, Clemens Sauerzopf, Jairaj Sanand, Markus Salletmaier & Sackl - 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   3 citations  
  16.  69
    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 (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  17. Peer Disagreement, Evidence, and Well-Groundedness.Han van Wietmarschen - 2013 - Philosophical Review 122 (3):395-425.
    The central question of the peer disagreement debate is: what should you believe about the disputed proposition if you have good reason to believe that an epistemic peer disagrees with you? This article shows that this question is ambiguous between evidential support (or propositional justification) and well-groundedness (or doxastic justification). The discussion focuses on conciliatory views, according to which peer disagreements require you to significantly revise your view or to suspend judgment. The article argues that for a (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   25 citations  
  18. Questionable Peers and Spinelessness.Sherman Benjamin - 2015 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 45 (4):425-444.
    The Equal Weight View holds that, when we discover we disagree with an epistemic peer, we should give our peer’s judgment as much weight as our own. But how should we respond when we cannot tell whether those who disagree with us are our epistemic peers? I argue for a position I will call the Earn-a-Spine View. According to this view, parties to a disagreement can remain confdent, at least in some situations, by fnding justifable reasons to think (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  19. Peer Relatedness, School Satisfaction, and Life Satisfaction in Early Adolescence: A Non-recursive Model.René Gempp & Mònica González-Carrasco - 2021 - Frontiers in Psychology 12.
    Cumulative evidence suggests that, for children and adolescents, peer relatedness is an essential component of their overall sense of belonging, and correlates with subjective well-being and school-based well-being. However, it remains unclear what the underlying mechanism explaining these relationships is. Therefore, this study examines whether there is a reciprocal effect between school satisfaction and overall life satisfaction, and whether the effect of peer relatedness on life satisfaction is mediated by school satisfaction. A non-recursive model with instrumental variables was (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  20. Who is an epistemic peer?Axel Gelfert - 2011 - Logos and Episteme 2 (4):507-514.
    Contemporary epistemology of peer disagreement has largely focused on our immediate normative response to prima facie instances of disagreement. Whereas some philosophers demand that we should withhold judgment (or moderate our credences) in such cases, others argue that, unless new evidence becomes available, disagreement at best gives us reason to demote our interlocutor from his peer status. But what makes someone an epistemic peer in the first place? This question has not received the attention it deserves. I (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  21.  8
    Peer Review or Lottery? A Critical Analysis of Two Different Forms of Decision-making Mechanisms for Allocation of Research Grants.Lambros Roumbanis - 2019 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 44 (6):994-1019.
    At present, peer review is the most common method used by funding agencies to make decisions about resource allocation. But how reliable, efficient, and fair is it in practice? The ex ante evaluation of scientific novelty is a fundamentally uncertain endeavor; bias and chance are embedded in the final outcome. In the current study, I will examine some of the most central problems of peer review and highlight the possible benefits of using a lottery as an alternative decision-making (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  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 (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  23.  88
    Distant Peers.Mark Vorobej - 2011 - Metaphilosophy 42 (5):708-722.
    What is the nature of rational disagreement? A number of philosophers have recently addressed this question by examining how we should respond to epistemic conflict with a so-called epistemic peer—that is, someone over whom you enjoy no epistemic advantage. Some say that you're rationally required to suspend judgment in these cases—thereby denying the very possibility of a certain kind of rational disagreement. Others say that it's permissible to retain your beliefs even in the face of epistemic conflict. By distinguishing (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  24. Peer Disagreement and the Limits of Coherent Error Attribution.Nicholas Tebben - 2013 - Logos and Episteme 4 (2):179-197.
    I argue that, in an important range of cases, judging that one disagrees with an epistemic peer requires attributing, either to one's peer or to oneself, a failure of rationality. There are limits, however, to how much irrationality one can coherently attribute, either to oneself or to another. I argue that these limitations on the coherent attribution of rational error put constraints on permissible responses to peer disagreement. In particular, they provide reason to respond to one-off disagreements (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  25. 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  
  26.  20
    Unethical peer behavior and employee performance: a moderated mediation model of deontic justice and ethical climate.Chenjing Gan, Linbo Yang, Weixiao Guo & Duanxu Wang - 2020 - Ethics and Behavior 30 (3):197-212.
    This study proposes a moderated mediation model based on deontic justice theory to investigate the impact of unethical peer behavior on employee performance. Data were collected in China through two survey studies, with two measurement points in each study. The data in study 1 were obtained from 271 employees of 17 firms, and the data in study 2 were collected from 225 employees of 9 firms. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to confirm the factorial validity of the measures employed (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  27. Group Peer Disagreement.J. Adam Carter - 2014 - Ratio 27 (3):11-28.
    A popular view in mainstream social epistemology maintains that, in the face of a revealed peer disagreement over p, neither party should remain just as confident vis-a-vis p as she initially was. This ‘conciliatory’ insight has been defended with regard to individual epistemic peers. However, to the extent that (non-summativist) groups are candidates for group knowledge and beliefs, we should expect groups (no less than individuals) to be in the market for disagreements. The aim here will be to carve (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  28.  45
    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  
  29.  62
    Peer Disagreement: A Call for the Revision of Prior Probabilities.Sven Rosenkranz & Moritz Schulz - 2015 - Dialectica 69 (4):551-586.
    The current debate about peer disagreement has so far mainly focused on the question of whether peer disagreements provide genuine counterevidence to which we should respond by revising our credences. By contrast, comparatively little attention has been devoted to the question by which process, if any, such revision should be brought about. The standard assumption is that we update our credences by conditionalizing on the evidence that peer disagreements provide. In this paper, we argue that non-dogmatist views (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  30.  63
    Peer Review May Not Be Such a Bad Idea: Response to Heesen and Bright.Darrell P. Rowbottom - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
    In a recent article in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Heesen and Bright argue that prepublication peer review should be abolished and replaced with postpublication peer review (provided the matter is judged purely on epistemic grounds). In this article, I show that there are three problems with their argument. First, it fails to consider the epistemic cost of implementing the change to postpublication peer review. Second, it fails to consider some potential epistemic benefits of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  31. Peer Disagreement and Higher Order Evidence.Thomas Kelly - 2010 - In Richard Feldman & Ted A. Warfield (eds.), Disagreement. Oxford University Press.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   246 citations  
  32.  75
    Simulating peer disagreements.Igor Douven - 2010 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (2):148-157.
    It has been claimed that epistemic peers, upon discovering that they disagree on some issue, should give up their opposing views and ‘split the difference’. The present paper challenges this claim by showing, with the help of computer simulations, that what the rational response to the discovery of peer disagreement is—whether it is sticking to one’s belief or splitting the difference—depends on factors that are contingent and highly context-sensitive.Keywords: Peer disagreement; Computer simulations; Opinion dynamics; Hegselmann–Krause model; Social epistemology.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   29 citations  
  33.  9
    Optimizing peer review to minimize the risk of retracting COVID-19-related literature.Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Helmar Bornemann-Cimenti & Panagiotis Tsigaris - 2021 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 24 (1):21-26.
    Retractions of COVID-19 literature in both preprints and the peer-reviewed literature serve as a reminder that there are still challenging issues underlying the integrity of the biomedical literature. The risks to academia become larger when such retractions take place in high-ranking biomedical journals. In some cases, retractions result from unreliable or nonexistent data, an issue that could easily be avoided by having open data policies, but there have also been retractions due to oversight in peer review and editorial (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  34.  54
    Peer reporting of unethical behavior: The influence of justice evaluations and social context factors. [REVIEW]Bart Victor, Linda Klebe Trevino & Debra L. Shapiro - 1993 - Journal of Business Ethics 12 (4):253 - 263.
    This field survey in a fast food restaurant setting tested the hypothesized influences of two social context variables (role responsibility and interests of group members) and justice evaluations (distributive, procedural, and retributive) on respondents' inclination to report theft and their theft reporting behavior. The results provided mixed support for the hypotheses. Inclination to report a peer for theft was associated with role responsibility, the interests of group members, and procedural justice perceptions. Actual reporting behavior was associated with the inclination (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   32 citations  
  35. The Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis and a New Theory of Free Will.Marcus Arvan - 2015 - Scientia Salon.
  36.  31
    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):187-255.
  37.  67
    Unconfirmed peers and spinelessness.Ben Sherman - 2015 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 45 (4):425-444.
    The Equal Weight View holds that, when we discover we disagree with an epistemic peer, we should give our peer’s judgment as much weight as our own. But how should we respond when we cannot tell whether those who disagree with us are our epistemic peers? I argue for a position I will call the Earn-a-Spine View. According to this view, parties to a disagreement can remain confident, at least in some situations, by finding justifiable reasons to think (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  38.  4
    Peer review and the pillar of salt: a case study.James Lawrence Powell - 2023 - Research Ethics 19 (1):78-89.
    Peer review has long been regarded as the gold standard of scientific publication, essential to the integrity of science itself. But, as any publishing scientist knows, peer review has its downside, including long delays and reviewer bias. Until the coming of the Internet, there appeared to be no alternative. Now, articles appear online as preprints almost immediately upon submission. But they lack peer review and thus their scientific standing can be questioned. Post-publication discussion platforms such as PubPeer (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39.  49
    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 (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  40.  34
    '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   5 citations  
  41. Peer Disagreement and the Bridge Principle.Marc-Kevin Daoust - 2021 - Topoi 40 (5):1213-1223.
    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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42.  5
    Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry.David Shatz - 2004 - Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    While much literature has sprouted on peer review, this is the first book-length, wide-ranging study that utilizes methods and resources of contemporary philosophy. It covers the tension between peer review and the liberal notion that truth emerges when ideas proliferate in the marketplace of ideas; arguments for and against blind review of submissions; the alleged conservatism of peer review; the anomalous nature of book reviewing; the status of non-peer-reviewed publications; and the future of peer review.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  43. NIH Peer Review: Criterion Scores Completely Account for Racial Disparities in Overall Impact Scores.Elena A. Erosheva, Sheridan Grant, Mei-Ching Chen, Mark D. Lindner, Richard K. Nakamura & Carole J. Lee - 2020 - Science Advances 6 (23):DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aaz4868.
    Previous research has found that funding disparities are driven by applications’ final impact scores and that only a portion of the black/white funding gap can be explained by bibliometrics and topic choice. Using National Institutes of Health R01 applications for council years 2014–2016, we examine assigned reviewers’ preliminary overall impact and criterion scores to evaluate whether racial disparities in impact scores can be explained by application and applicant characteristics. We hypothesize that differences in commensuration—the process of combining criterion scores into (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  44. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   57 citations  
  45.  14
    Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant?Serge P. J. M. Horbach & Willem Halffman - 2020 - Minerva 58 (2):139-161.
    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 (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  46.  9
    Peer Ostracism as a Sanction Against Wrongdoers and Whistleblowers.Mary B. Curtis, Jesse C. Robertson, R. Cameron Cockrell & L. Dutch Fayard - 2020 - Journal of Business Ethics 174 (2):333-354.
    Retaliation against whistleblowers is a well-recognized problem, yet there is little explanation for why uninvolved peers choose to retaliate through ostracism. We conduct two experiments in which participants take the role of a peer third-party observer of theft and subsequent whistleblowing. We manipulate injunctive norms and descriptive norms. Both experiments support the core of our theoretical model, based on social intuitionist theory, such that moral judgments of the acts of wrongdoing and whistleblowing influence the perceived likeability of each actor (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  47. Multi‐Peer Disagreement and the Preface Paradox.Kenneth Boyce & Allan Hazlett - 2014 - Ratio 29 (1):29-41.
    The problem of multi-peer disagreement concerns the reasonable response to a situation in which you believe P1 … Pn and disagree with a group of ‘epistemic peers’ of yours, who believe ∼P1 … ∼Pn, respectively. However, the problem of multi-peer disagreement is a variant on the preface paradox; because of this the problem poses no challenge to the so-called ‘steadfast view’ in the epistemology of disagreement, on which it is sometimes reasonable to believe P in the face of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  48.  70
    Peer Disagreement and Independence Preservation.Carl G. Wagner - 2011 - Erkenntnis 74 (2):277-288.
    It has often been recommended that the differing probability distributions of a group of experts should be reconciled in such a way as to preserve each instance of independence common to all of their distributions. When probability pooling is subject to a universal domain condition, along with state-wise aggregation, there are severe limitations on implementing this recommendation. In particular, when the individuals are epistemic peers whose probability assessments are to be accorded equal weight, universal preservation of independence is, with a (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  49.  2
    Peer Review, Peer Education, and Modeling in the Practice of Clinical Ethics Consultation: The Zadeh Project.Stuart G. Finder & Mark J. Bliton (eds.) - 2018 - Cham: Springer Verlag.
    This Open Access book about the Zadeh Project demonstrates and explores a core question in clinical ethics: how can ethics consultants be accountable in the face of a robust plurality of ethical standpoints, especially those that underwrite practices and methods for doing ethics consultation as well as those viewpoints and values encountered in daily clinical ethics practice? Underscoring this question is the recognition that the field of clinical ethics consultation has arrived at a crucial point in its maturation. Many efforts (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  50.  9
    Peer-Based Interventions on Academic Integrity: Assessing Immediate and Long Term Learning.Preet K. Chauhan, Eileen Wood, Tarique Plummer & Gail Forsyth - 2018 - Journal of Academic Ethics 16 (2):133-149.
    The current study extends previous literature regarding the effectiveness of learning about academic integrity through peer instruction by assessing the impact of a peer instructional approach for actual and perceived learning gains over time. One trained residence don provided one interactive 30-min presentation covering four major aspects of academic integrity and misconduct to groups of undergraduate students. In total, 192 participants attended the workshop and were surveyed for their knowledge of academic integrity immediately before the presentation, immediately after (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
1 — 50 / 1000