Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Rourke, Byron P.
1991.
Toward openness and fairness in the review process.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
161.
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.
Zentall, Thomas R.
1991.
What to do about peer review: Is the cure worse than the disease?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
166.
Gorman, Michael E.
1991.
Replication, reliability and peer review: A case study.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
149.
Eckberg, Douglas Lee
1991.
When nonreliability of reviews indicates solid science.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
145.
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.
Kraemer, Helena Chmura
1991.
Do we really want more “reliable” reviewers?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
152.
Schönemann, Peter H.
1991.
In praise of randomness.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
162.
Wasserman, Gerald S.
1991.
Do peer reviewers really agree more on rejections than acceptances? A random-agreement benchmark says they do not.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
165.
Bornstein, Robert F.
1991.
The predictive validity of peer review: A neglected issue.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
138.
Gilmore, J. Barnard
1991.
On forecasting validity and finessing reliability.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
148.
Marsh, Herbert W.
and
Ball, Samuel
1991.
Reflections on the peer review process.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
157.
Greene, Richard
1991.
Is there an alternative to peer review?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
149.
Roediger, Henry L.
1991.
Is unreliability in peer review harmful?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
159.
Demorest, Marilyn E.
1991.
Different rates of agreement on acceptance and rejection: A statistical artifact?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
144.
Laming, Donald
1991.
Why is the reliability of peer review so low?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
154.
Colman, Andrew M.
1991.
Unreliable peer review: Causes and cures of human misery.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
141.
Lock, Stephen P.
1991.
Should the blinded lead the blinded?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
156.
Adams, Kenneth M.
1991.
Peer review: An unflattering picture.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
135.
Cone, John D.
1991.
Evaluating scholarly works: How many reviewers? How much anonymity?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
142.