Research peer review/Bibliography: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Daniel Mietchen
(+one)
imported>Daniel Mietchen
m (+one)
Line 11: Line 11:
  | doi = 10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6
  | doi = 10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6
  | url = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12127284
  | url = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12127284
}}
*{{Citation
| title = Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times?
| url = http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/57739/abstract
| year = 1996
| author = Campanario, J.M.
| journal = Journal of the American Society for Information Science
| pages = 302–310
| volume = 47
| issue = 4
| doi = 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199604)47:4<302::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-0
}}
}}
*{{citation
*{{citation

Revision as of 05:01, 3 July 2009

This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Audio [?]
Video [?]
 
A list of key readings about Research peer review.
Please sort and annotate in a user-friendly manner. For formatting, consider using automated reference wikification.
Suggests, based on a study of the costs of peer review at the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, that innovation could be stimulated by avoiding peer review for grants at the initial stages of research.