'Peer Review' Culture

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 193-204

  Atkinson, Malcolm ^a  

^a NONE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Judgement; Opinion testing; Peer status; Referee function; Review management; Statistics

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ETHICS; HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; SOCIAL JUSTICE;

ETHICS; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; SOCIAL JUSTICE;

EID: 0035316886     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-001-0040-8     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Yallow, R.S. (1982) in: S. Harnad (ed.), Peer commentary on peer review, Cambridge University Press, p. 60.
2. Atkinson, M. (1994) Regulation of Science by peer review, Studies in Hist. & Phil. Sci. 25: 147-158.
3. Armstrong, J.S. (1997) Peer Review for Journals: Evidence of Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation, Science and Engineering Ethics 3: 63-84.
4. Dawkins, R (1996) Climbing Mount Improbable, Viking, U.K., pp. 65-67.
5. Wali, K. (ed.) (1998) Review of "S. Chandrasekhar", New Scientist, 21st Feb.: 46.
6. Wright, P. (1987) Spycatcher, Viking Penguin, N.Y., pp. 11-12.
7. Carter, R. (1998) Mapping the mind, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, U.K.
8. Johnson-Abercrombie, M.L. (1960) The anatomy of judgement, Hutchinson
9. Hanson, N.R. (1958) Patterns of Discovery, Cambridge Univeristy Press, U.K., p. 175.
10. Johnson-Abercrombie, M.L. op. cit., pp..57-8.
11. Wessely, S. (1998) Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? The Lancet 352: 301-5.
12. New Scientist (1997) Red tape holds up Kiwi reforms, 16th Aug., p. 45.
13. New Scientist (1997) The price of prejudice, 1st Nov., pp. 3 and 22-23.
14. Wennerȧs, C. and Wold, A. (1997) Nepotism and sexism in peer-review, Nature 387: 341-3.
15. 11 The Lancet 352: 1063-4.
16. Gliek, J. (1988) Chaos, Sphere Books (Macdonald), London, p. 132.
17. Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago University Press, USA, p. 90,
18. Horrobin, D.F. (1982) In praise of non-experts, New Scientist 94: 842-4.
19. Durso, T.W. (1997) Editor's advice to rejected authors: just try, try again, The Scientist 11(21), Oct. 27, p. 13.
20. Silver, B.J. (1990) The Ascent of Science, Oxford University Press, New York, e.g. pp. 293, 403, 432.
21. Horrobin, D.F. (1996) Peer review of grant applications: a harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research? The Lancet 348: 1293-5.
22. Martin, B. (1986) Bias in awarding research grants, Brit. Med. J. 293: 550-2
23. Campanario, J.M. (1997) The 'Journal Scout', The Scientist 11(10), May 12, p. .9.
24. Peters, D.P. and Ceci;, S.J. (1982) Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles submitted again, in: Harnad, S. (ed.), Peer commentary on peer review, Cambridge University Press, U.K.
25. Bernard, A. (ed) (1991) Rotten rejections, Robson Books, London, p. 65.
26. Friedman R.M. (1989) Appropriating the Weather, Cornell University Press, USA.
27. Jewkes, J. et al; (1958) The Sources of Invention, Macmillan, London, p. 16.
28. Adair, R.K. and Moravcsic, M.J. (1982) A physics editor comments of Peters and Ceci's peer review study, in: Harnard, S. (ed) Peer commentary on peer review, Cambridge University Press, U.K, pp. 12 & 43.
29. Horrobin, D.F. (1982) Peer review: A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous for science, The behavioural and brain sciences, pp. 5, 217.
30. Riggs, P.J. (1992) Whys and Ways of Science, Melbourne University Press, Australia, p. 134.