9. Peer Review in Poland: Practical Solutions and Possible Improvements

In Mark S. Frankel & Jane Cave, Evaluating Science and Scientists. Central European University Press. pp. 96-112 (1997)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Categories

Add categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1515/9789633865668-012

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 104,641

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

4. Peer Review in Science and Science Policy.Edward J. Hackett - 1997 - In Mark S. Frankel & Jane Cave, Evaluating Science and Scientists. Central European University Press. pp. 47-60.
5. A Polish Perspective on Peer Review.Adam Łomnicki - 1997 - In Mark S. Frankel & Jane Cave, Evaluating Science and Scientists. Central European University Press. pp. 61-70.
8. Peer Review in the Czech Republic.Miroslava Vrbova - 1997 - In Mark S. Frankel & Jane Cave, Evaluating Science and Scientists. Central European University Press. pp. 93-95.
6. The Limits of Peer Review: The Case of Hungary.Katalin Hangos - 1997 - In Mark S. Frankel & Jane Cave, Evaluating Science and Scientists. Central European University Press. pp. 71-81.
Evaluating Science and Scientists.Mark S. Frankel & Jane Cave (eds.) - 1997 - Central European University Press.
It Is Time to Re-Evaluate the Peer Review Process for Preclinical Research.Rajat Bhattacharya & Lee M. Ellis - 2018 - Bioessays 40 (1):1700185.
Structural problems require structural solutions.Nina Strohminger & Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò - 2023 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 46:e175.
Netsuzō no kagakusha: STAP saibō jiken.Momoko Suda - 2014 - Tōkyō-to Chiyoda-ku: Bungeishunjū.
The Principles of Fair Allocation of Peer-Review: How Much Should a Researcher be Expected to Contribute?José G. B. Derraik - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (4):825-828.
Peer review: Selecting the best science. [REVIEW]Wendy Baldwin & Belinda Seto - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):11-17.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-06-09

Downloads
4 (#1,839,456)

6 months
1 (#1,609,113)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references