Using a dialectical scientific brief in peer review

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 85-98

  Stamps III, Arthur E ^a  

^a Institute of Environmental Quality   (United States)

Author keywords

Dispute resolution; Peer review

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002835355     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-997-0018-2     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Abramowitz, S. I. & Gomes, B. (1975) Publish or politic: referee bias in manuscript review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 5 (3): 187-200.
2. Appleman, J. (1968) Persuasion in brief writing, Coiner Publications, Ltd., Vienna, Virginia.
3. Armstrong, J. S. (1979) Advocacy and objectivity in science, Management Science 25 (3): 423-428.
4. Armstrong, J. S. (1997) Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation, Science and Engineering Ethics 3: 63-84.
5. Bacon, F. (1605, 1952) The advancement of learning, Collier & Son, New York.
6. Bacon, F. (1620, 1960) The new organon, The Liberal Arts Press, New York.
7. Bacon, F. (1627, 1980) The great instauration and New Atlantis, AHM Publishing, Arlington Heights, Illinois.
8. Bakanic, V., McPhail, C. & Simon, R. J. (1989) Mixed messages: referees' comments on the manuscripts they review. The Sociological Quarterly 30 (4): 639-654.
9. Baldwin, W. & Seto, B. (1997) Peer Review: Funding the Best Science, Science and Engineering Ethics 3: 11-18.
10. Bero, L. A., Glantz, S. A. & Rennie, D. (1994) Publication bias and public health policy on environmental tobacco smoke, Journal of the American Medical Association 272 (2) : 133-136.
11. Brumbaugh, J. F. (1917) Legal reasoning and briefing: logic applied to the preparation, trial and appeal of cases, with illustrative briefs and forms. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis.
12. Cicchetti, D. V. (1997) Referees, Editors, and Publication Practices: Implications for Improving the Reliability and Usefulness of the Peer Review System, Science and Engineering Ethics 3: 51-62.
13. Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.
14. Cook, T. D., Cooper, H., Cordray, D. S., Hartmann, H., Hedges, L.V., Light, R. J., Louis, T. A. & Mosteller, F. (1994) Meta-analysis for explanation. Russell Sage, New York.
15. Cooper, H. M. & Hedges, L. V. (1994) The handbook of research synthesis. Russell Sage, New York.
16. Cooper, H. M. & Rosenthal, R. (1980) Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psychological Bulletin 87 (3): 442-449.
17. Cooper, H. M. (1989) Integrating research: a guide for literature reviews, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
18. Cummings, L. L. & Frost, P. J. (1985) Publishing in the organizational sciences. Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL.
19. Daniel, H.-D. (1993) Guardians of science. VCH, Weinheim, Federal Republic of Germany.
20. Delany, J. (1987) How to brief a case: an introduction to jurisprudence. Delany Publication, Bogota, New Jersey.
21. Fletcher, R. H. & Fletcher, S. W. (1997) Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3: 35-50.
22. Garfunkel, J. M., Ulshen, M. H., Hamrick, H. J. & Lawson, E. E. (1994) Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions. Journal of the American Medical Association 272 (2): 137-138.
23. George, J. J. (1988) Judicial opinion writing handbook. S. Hein & Co, Buffalo, NY.
24. Hargens, L. L. (1990) Variation in journal peer review systems: possible causes and consequences. Journal of the American Medical Association 263 (10): 1348-1352.
25. Hedges, L. V. & Olkin, I., (1985) Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
26. Hunter, J. E. & Schmidt, F. L. (1990) Methods of meta-analysis. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
27. King, D. W., McDonald, D. D. & Roderer, N. K. (1981) Scientific journals in the United States: their production, use, and economics. Hutchinson Ross, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.
28. Kochler, J. J. (1993) The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality, Organizational behavior and human decision processes 56: 28-55.
29. Kostoff, R. N. (1997) The Principles and Practices of Peer Review, Science and Engineering Ethics 3: 19-34.
30. Kuhn, T. S. (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
31. Lock, S., & Smith, J., (1990) What do peer reviewers do?, Journal of the American Medical Association 263 (10) 1341-1343.
32. Mahoney, M. J. (1977) Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system, Cognitive Therapy and Research 1(2): 161-175.
33. McNutt, R. A., Evans, R. H., Fletcher, R. H. & Fletcher, S. W. (1990) The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review, Journal of the American Medical Association 263(10): 1371-1376.
34. Peters, D. P. & Ceci, S. J. (1983) Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5: 187-255.
35. Pitoni, M. (1954) Suggestions on brief writing and argumentation. Foundation Press, Brooklyn, NY:
36. Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R, L. (1991) Essentials of behavioral research: methods and data analysis. McGraw-Hill, New York.
37. Spencer, N. J., Hartnett, J. & Mahoney, J. (1986) Problems with reviews in the standard editorial practice, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 1(1): 21-36.
38. Stamps, A. E. (1990) Use of photographs to simulate environments: a meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills 71: 907-913.
39. Stamps, A. E. (1993) Simulation effects on environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Management 38: 115-132.
40. Walter, C. G. (1931) Brief writing and advocacy. Baker, Voorhis & Co., New York.
41. Weller, A. (1991) Potential bias in editorial peer review: a study of U.S. medical journals, The Serials Librarian 19(3/4): 95-103.
42. Yankauer, A. (1990) Who are peer reviewers and how much do they review? Journal of the American Medical Association 263(10): 1338-1340.
43. Ziman, J. (1991) Reliable knowledge: an exploration of the grounds for belief in science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
44. Zuckerman, H. & Merton, R. K. (1971) Patterns of evaluation in science: institutionalism, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva IX (1): 66-100.