Open Peer Commentary
Cognitive relativism and peer-review bias
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, p. 213
-
- Article
- Export citation
Optional published refereeing
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, pp. 213-214
-
- Article
- Export citation
Judging document content versus social functions of refereeing: Possible and impossible tasks
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, pp. 214-215
-
- Article
- Export citation
Scientific communication: So where do we go from here?
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, pp. 215-216
-
- Article
- Export citation
The insufficiencies of methodological inadequacy
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, p. 216
-
- Article
- Export citation
Peer review in the physical sciences: An editor's view
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, pp. 216-217
-
- Article
- Export citation
Peer review: A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous for science
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, pp. 217-218
-
- Article
- Export citation
Peer reviewing: Improve or be rejected
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, pp. 218-219
-
- Article
- Export citation
Interreferee agreement and acceptance rates in physics
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, p. 219
-
- Article
- Export citation
Peer review: Prediction of the future or judgment of the past?
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, pp. 219-220
-
- Article
- Export citation
Publication, politics, and scientific progress
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, pp. 220-221
-
- Article
- Export citation
Reform peer review: The Peters and Ceci study in the context of other current studies of scientific evaluation
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, pp. 221-225
-
- Article
- Export citation
Making the plausible implausible: A favorable review of Peters and Ceci's target article
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, pp. 225-226
-
- Article
- Export citation
When we practice to deceive: The ethics of a metascientific inquiry
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, pp. 226-227
-
- Article
- Export citation
Designing peer review for the subjective as well as the objective side of science
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, pp. 227-228
-
- Article
- Export citation
Rejecting published work: It couldn't happen in physics! (or could it?)
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, pp. 228-229
-
- Article
- Export citation
Reliability, bias, or quality: What is the issue?
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, p. 229
-
- Article
- Export citation
What is the source of bias in peer review?
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, pp. 229-230
-
- Article
- Export citation
Biases, decisions and auctorial rebuttal in the peer-review process
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, pp. 230-231
-
- Article
- Export citation
Reviewer “bias”: Do Peters and Ceci protest too much?
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 February 2010, pp. 231-232
-
- Article
- Export citation