- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
When will the editors start to edit?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):212-213 (1982)
Abstract
This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)Other Versions
No versions found
My notes
Similar books and articles
No “when” without “where”.Christian Quaia & Lance M. Optican - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4):696-697.
Tackling group-level traits by starting at the start.Maciej Chudek & Joseph Henrich - 2014 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37 (3):256-257.
Manuscript evaluation by journal referees and editors: Randomness or bias?Andrew M. Colman - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):205-206.
Competency testing for reviewers and editors.Rosalyn S. Yalow - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):244-245.
A message from the new editors.Barbara Finlay, Paul Bloom & Jeffrey Gray - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (1):2-2.
Tacit agreements between authors and editors.Robert J. Sternberg - 1985 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8 (4):746-747.
Causal generative models are just a start.Ernest Davis & Gary Marcus - 2017 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 40.
Vertebrate neuroethology: Doomed from the start?David J. Ingle - 1984 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7 (3):392-393.
Children begin with the same start-up software, but their software updates are cultural.Jennifer M. Clegg & Kathleen H. Corriveau - 2017 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 40.
Peer review is not enough: Editors must work with librarians to ensure access to research.Steve Fuller - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):147-148.
Analytics
Added to PP
2014-01-20
Downloads
27 (#818,040)
6 months
10 (#388,339)
2014-01-20
Downloads
27 (#818,040)
6 months
10 (#388,339)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):119-135.
Reliability, fairness, objectivity and other inappropriate goals in peer review.John C. Bailar - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):137-138.
Reflections from the peer review mirror.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):167-186.
Referee agreement in context.Lowell L. Hargens - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):150-151.
Confusion between reviewer reliability and wise editorial and funding decisions.Charles A. Kiesler - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):151-152.
References found in this work
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas S. Kuhn - 1962 - Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Edited by Ian Hacking.
Criticism and the growth of knowledge.Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.) - 1970 - Cambridge [Eng.]: Cambridge University Press.
The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations.Robert King Merton - 1973 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Edited by Norman W. Storer.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.David Bohm - 1964 - Philosophical Quarterly 14 (57):377-379.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-f8568656d-t7p9b uwo