Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Fletcher, Jack M.
1991.
Journal availability and the quality of published research.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
146.
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.
Rosenthal, Robert
1991.
Some indices of the reliability of peer review.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
160.
Cohen, Patricia
1991.
Does group discussion contribute reliability of complex judgments?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
139.
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.
Armstrong, J. Scott
and
Hubbard, Raymond
1991.
Does the need for agreement among reviewers inhibit the publication controversial findings?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
136.
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.
Gilmore, J. Barnard
1991.
On forecasting validity and finessing reliability.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
148.
Bornstein, Robert F.
1991.
The predictive validity of peer review: A neglected issue.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
138.
Cole, Stephen
1991.
Consensus and the reliability of peer-review evaluations.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
140.
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.
Eckberg, Douglas Lee
1991.
When nonreliability of reviews indicates solid science.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
145.
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.
Reflections from the peer review mirror.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
167.
Fuller, Steve
1991.
Peer review is not enough: Editors must work with librarians to ensure access to research.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
147.
Lock, Stephen P.
1991.
Should the blinded lead the blinded?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
156.
Laming, Donald
1991.
Why is the reliability of peer review so low?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
154.
Kraemer, Helena Chmura
1991.
Do we really want more “reliable” reviewers?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
152.
Kiesler, Charles A.
1991.
Confusion between reviewer reliability and wise editorial and funding decisions.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
151.
Roediger, Henry L.
1991.
Is unreliability in peer review harmful?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 14,
Issue. 1,
p.
159.