Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Parker, Gordon
Barnett, Bryanne
Holmes, Sally
and
Manicavasagar, Vijaya
1984.
Publishing in the Parish.
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry,
Vol. 18,
Issue. 1,
p.
78.
Ross, Michael
and
Ellard, John H
1986.
On winnowing: The impact of scarcity on allocators' evaluations of candidates for a resource.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 22,
Issue. 4,
p.
374.
Parker, Gordon
1986.
On Blinding the Journal Assessor.
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry,
Vol. 20,
Issue. 2,
p.
241.
Delcomyn, Fred
1991.
Peer review: Explicit criteria and training can help.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
144.
Colman, Andrew M.
1991.
Unreliable peer review: Causes and cures of human misery.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
141.
Cole, Stephen
1991.
Consensus and the reliability of peer-review evaluations.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
140.
Bornstein, Robert F.
1991.
The predictive validity of peer review: A neglected issue.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
138.
Lock, Stephen P.
1991.
Should the blinded lead the blinded?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
156.
Mahoney, Michael J.
1991.
Justice, efficiency and epistemology in the peer review of scientific manuscripts.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
157.
Tyrer, Peter
1991.
Chairman's action: The importance of executive decisions in peer review.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
164.
Gilmore, J. Barnard
1991.
On forecasting validity and finessing reliability.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
148.
Bailar, John C.
1991.
Reliability, fairness, objectivity and other inappropriate goals in peer review.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
137.
Cicchetti, Domenic V.
1991.
The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
119.
Cone, John D.
1991.
Evaluating scholarly works: How many reviewers? How much anonymity?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
142.
Rosenthal, Robert
1991.
Some indices of the reliability of peer review.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
160.
Roediger, Henry L.
1991.
Is unreliability in peer review harmful?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
159.
Rourke, Byron P.
1991.
Toward openness and fairness in the review process.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
161.
Laming, Donald
1991.
Why is the reliability of peer review so low?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
154.
Greene, Richard
1991.
Is there an alternative to peer review?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
149.
Salzinger, Kurt
1991.
Now that we know how low the reliability is, what shall we do?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
162.