- 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
Reviewer “bias”: Do Peters and Ceci protest too much?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):231-232 (1982)
Abstract
This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)Other Versions
No versions found
My notes
Similar books and articles
A challenge to Peters and Ceci's conclusions with an examination of editorial files for reviewer appropriateness.Robert Boice, Gayle Pecker, Ellen Zaback & David H. Barlow - 1985 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8 (4):744-745.
Experimenter and reviewer bias.Joseph C. Witt & Michael J. Hannafin - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):243-244.
Reform peer review: The Peters and Ceci study in the context of other current studies of scientific evaluation.Clyde Manwell & C. M. Ann Baker - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):221-225.
Reviewer reliability: Confusing random error with systematic error or bias.Stanley Presser - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):234-235.
Free will and motor subroutines: Too much for a small area.Giacomo Rizzolatti - 1985 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8 (4):597-597.
Are we asking too much of the stretch reflex?Peter B. C. Matthews - 1986 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 9 (4):614-615.
Criteria of test bias: do the statistical models fit reality?Gordon M. Harrington - 1980 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (3):345-345.
Protesting too much: Self-deception and self-signaling.Ryan McKay, Danica Mijović-Prelec & Dražen Prelec - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (1):34-35.
A physics editor comments on Peters and Ceci's peer-review study.Robert K. Adair - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):196-196.
Analytics
Added to PP
2014-01-20
Downloads
26 (#892,543)
6 months
2 (#1,294,541)
2014-01-20
Downloads
26 (#892,543)
6 months
2 (#1,294,541)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Peer Review May Not Be Such a Bad Idea: Response to Heesen and Bright.Darrell P. Rowbottom - 2022 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 73 (4):927-940.
Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation.J. Scott Armstrong - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.
Proposed codification of ethicacy in the publication process.Jo Ann Carland, James W. Carland & Carroll D. Aby - 1992 - Journal of Business Ethics 11 (2):95 - 104.
Evaluating the Pros and Cons of Different Peer Review Policies via Simulation.Jia Zhu, Gabriel Fung, Wai Hung Wong, Zhixu Li & Chuanhua Xu - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (4):1073-1094.
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-99fc7d78b-6fxz5 uwo