Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:14:45.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peering into review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Rajendra Persaud
Rajendra Persaud*
Affiliation:
Maudsley and Bethlem NHS Trust, London SE5 8AZ
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial
Information
Psychiatric Bulletin , Volume 19 , Issue 9 , September 1995 , pp. 529 - 531
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1995

References

Atkinson, M. (1994) Regulation of science by peer review. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 25, 147–158.Google Scholar
Barber, B. (1961) Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery. Science, 134, 596–602.Google Scholar
Bornstein, R. F. (1990) Epistemic progress and journal page limitations: a proposal for increasing the base rate of manuscript acceptance in psychology journals. American Psychologist, 45, 673–674.Google Scholar
Bradley, J. V. (1982) Editorial overkill. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 19, 271–274.Google Scholar
Cotton, P. (1993) Flaws documented, reforms debated at congress on journal peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 270, 2775–2778.Google Scholar
Finke, R. A. (1990) Recommendations for contemporary editorial practices. American Psychologist, 45, 669–670,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iltis, H. (1966) Life of Mendel New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
Ingelfinger, F. J. (1974) Peer review in biomedical publication. American Journal of Medicine, 56, 686–692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, T. S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lock, S. (1986) Getting the balance right. British Medical Journal, 292, 428–429.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W. & Ball, S. (1989) The peer review process used to evaluate manuscripts submitted to academic journals: interjudgmental reliability. Journal of Experimental Education, 57, 151–169.Google Scholar
O'Connor, M. (1978) Editing Scientific Books and Journals. Tunbridge Wells: Pitman-Medical.Google Scholar
Peters, D. P. & Ceci, S. (1982) Peer review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles. submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 187–195.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, G. (1995) Jim Birley in conversation with Greg Wilkinson. Psychiatric Bulletin, 19, 33–30.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.