The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation
about
Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeepingPublishing the research processPeer review for improving the quality of grant applicationsPeer review for improving the quality of grant applicationsScientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific CommunicationA reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: a multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinantsAn efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions.The Influence of Peer Reviewer Expertise on the Evaluation of Research Funding Applications“Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellenceThe effectiveness of the peer review process: inter-referee agreement and predictive validity of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie.The association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of Australian researchers in six fields of public health.Heterogeneity of inter-rater reliabilities of grant peer reviews and its determinants: a general estimating equations approachTeleconference versus face-to-face scientific peer review of grant application: effects on review outcomes.The nonuse of psychological research at two federal agencies.A numerical algorithm with preference statements to evaluate the performance of scientists.Peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: relevance for research in clinical neuropsychology.Menage a quoi? Optimal number of peer reviewers.Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU's Seventh Framework Programme for ResearchInterrater reliability of 1987-1991 Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport reviews.Nurse editors' views on the peer review process.Legitimizing basic research by evaluating quality.Ranking games.The Air We Breathe: A Critical Look at Practices and Alternatives in the Peer-Review Process.Are Social Scientists Harder on Their Colleagues Than Physical Scientists Were on Theirs in the Past? Commentary on Trafimow & Rice (2009).'Your comments are meaner than your score': score calibration talk influences intra- and inter-panel variability during scientific grant peer review.How reliable is peer review of scientific abstracts? Looking back at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals.Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals.Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals.Predicting long-term citation impact of articles in social and personality psychology.Is the jury out on consensus opinion?Do recognition-free recall discrepancies detect retrieval deficits in closed-head injury? Demonstrating the inaccuracies of a reviewer's critique.Le Salon des Refusés.Methods for evaluating information sources: An annotated cataloguePeer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovationFrom Manuscript Evaluation to Article Valuation: The Changing Technologies of Journal Peer ReviewEditorial JudgmentsSorting the esoteica from the exoterica: There's plenty of room in cyberspace — a response to fullerTranslating expertise into effective instruction: The impacts of cognitive task analysis (CTA) on lab report quality and student retention in the biological sciencesWhat makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology
P2860
Q21686060-8547C2F7-2B46-49B9-B37F-5FE1478A0723Q21781588-AD7E5879-0718-49DA-9F06-F698AB6432AEQ24245580-E0AE33E4-8E64-4D65-8B9D-5D49308A2E4CQ24250320-EEFB27B9-1518-40FA-95A1-CE8118809886Q24273234-FF00D4F7-25C8-457B-B053-35EC2FB31F38Q24288722-8BA9D9A4-161C-472B-83B3-141FF7E72D98Q26822676-D1596103-56DF-4313-88FC-3409B498922FQ28109661-2EFDF621-5B25-4AD5-8071-4F3A3E791431Q29017249-66CA27EB-DF1E-403B-976C-91BAB6B3ABCAQ33355090-C78514AC-1DEA-4DE9-99D8-878C85659DBBQ33873787-D20E069F-94DA-431A-AC72-2E36F57458B2Q34465202-6D79F083-84A7-4F50-B174-14B5E330C014Q34950354-61A4C680-CC95-4D8F-8F75-FACE3D79A417Q35058855-F84D3FF4-1A7E-4CD4-85B4-8D0833C1A75CQ35193988-329230D1-AB1C-4A66-A417-0EF2884A3098Q35550254-062D28A3-2ACA-4B75-9867-9D4A8D44BB12Q35591706-B283CD8E-FBE5-457F-B63B-FEE9E72CD58EQ35678788-D2DA8CC5-BF6A-4E1A-93B3-F45629B48202Q36105691-EA53144D-CD52-4C6D-AEFF-A26E5A3C3413Q36312778-02006DF5-44E4-4147-A027-A2754FFC9021Q37678727-CB282797-E211-42A8-9EA9-78EE7A611DCEQ38237046-EF427367-1DE4-4D72-B1FE-BB4D51EBD030Q38544406-48897A17-14E1-4335-9514-D14808A4812BQ38544413-5EE5F667-4674-4515-9136-4F0A372BB701Q39274088-176094E7-8B41-4408-8976-2A90CB6FB92DQ40913858-FD79EBBE-B0AA-47B9-B039-C00899BAD663Q43771235-A257B7E5-2CFE-4B91-80C4-51925D3B391BQ44788771-FD2B8F70-AE4F-4631-B6CD-B0AE11608905Q45027659-DA8FD1C8-4B69-4119-A153-953C3F037926Q47368364-CF488EEA-5933-492B-8873-127641827840Q47612895-5C71DB3F-5843-41B0-B716-465A4F8B766CQ52003679-3DF6979A-3EB8-4C24-896B-B974F71472E7Q53654962-A3C77675-C587-4F49-8757-A9CDEA3E2DDEQ55992639-EEE03354-58C6-4E58-9ECD-CCDC16742BC1Q56226471-624FE88E-5931-4C9D-88BF-2640CF9E5834Q56854653-D93555A4-BDFD-4DED-8AB8-6723ED6A4B73Q56854657-7D728111-3CD8-4390-8A46-33B0A8917FE9Q56894844-753DA33B-EDFA-4924-ADF7-88898FDF8C2EQ57457483-39385A3A-F9DB-48F5-86A1-E7BFC0B8BF1BQ57923922-BFF8BEB4-ED75-4EAE-9BEA-E1D6C67C5528
P2860
The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation
description
1991 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
1991 թուականի Մարտին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
1991 թվականի մարտին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
1991年の論文
@ja
1991年論文
@yue
1991年論文
@zh-hant
1991年論文
@zh-hk
1991年論文
@zh-mo
1991年論文
@zh-tw
1991年论文
@wuu
name
The reliability of peer review ...... oss-disciplinary investigation
@ast
The reliability of peer review ...... oss-disciplinary investigation
@en
The reliability of peer review ...... oss-disciplinary investigation
@en-gb
type
label
The reliability of peer review ...... oss-disciplinary investigation
@ast
The reliability of peer review ...... oss-disciplinary investigation
@en
The reliability of peer review ...... oss-disciplinary investigation
@en-gb
prefLabel
The reliability of peer review ...... oss-disciplinary investigation
@ast
The reliability of peer review ...... oss-disciplinary investigation
@en
The reliability of peer review ...... oss-disciplinary investigation
@en-gb
P2860
P1476
The reliability of peer review ...... oss-disciplinary investigation
@en
P2093
Domenic V. Cicchetti
P2860
P304
P356
10.1017/S0140525X00065675
P407
P577
1991-03-01T00:00:00Z