Braun Tibor, Schubert András (szerk.): Szakértői bírálat (peer review) a tudományos kutatásban : Válogatott tanulmányok a téma szakirodalmából (A MTAK Informatikai És Tudományelemzési Sorozata 7., 1993)

EUGENE GARFIELD: Refereeing and Peer Review. Part 2. The Research on Refereeing and Alternatives in the Present System

23 GARFIELD: REFEREEING AND PEER REVIEW, PART 1 7. Debater P. APS review» refereeing procedure». Phys. Today 35(2):9; 95-7, 1982. 8. Bishop C T. How to adit a scientific journal. Philadelphia: ISI Pres». 1984. 138 p. 9. McCaBery M. Peer review—or sneer review? Can. Fam. Physician 29:857, 1983. 10. Laadberg G D. Appreciation to our peer reviewers. JAMA—J Am. Med. Assn. 251:758; 817-23, 1984. 11. Aaby P. Refereeing for JORS. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 34:1025-6, 1983. 12. Znckerana H 41 Merton R K. Patterns of evaluation in science: institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva 9:66-100, 1971. IReprinted as: Institutionalized patterns of evaluation in science. (Merton R K.) The sociology of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1973. p. 460-%.] 13. Coraforth 1 W. Letter to editor. (Referees.) New Sei. 62:39, 1974. 14. Day R A. How to write and publish a scientific paper. Philadelphia: ISI Press. 1983. p. 82. 15. Lock S. A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine. London: Nuffield Provincial Hosptials Trust, 1985. 172 p. 16. Peters DPR Cecf S I. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. Behav. Brain Sei. 5:187-95, 1982. 17. Lock S. Peer review weighed in the balance. Brit. Med. J. 285:1224-6, 1982. 18. Peters DPR Cecf S I. A manuscript masquerade. Sciences 20 (7):16-9: 35. 1980. 19. Rom C. Rejected. New West 4<4):39-43. 1979. 20. Koaknid ). Steps. New York: Random House, 1968. 147 p. 21. Taz S R Rubinstein R A. Responsibility in reviewing and research. Behav. Brain Sei. 5:238-40. 1982. 22. Yalow R S. Competency testing for reviewers and editors. Behav. Brain Sei. 5:244-5, 1982. 23. Thomas G I. Perhaps it was right to reject the resubmitted manuscripts. Behav. Brain Sei. 5:240, 1982. 24. Beyer I M. Explaining an unsurprising demonstration: high rejection rates and scarcity of space. Behav. Brain Sei. 5:202-3, 1982. 25. WhltcRarst G I. The quandary of manuscript reviewing. Behav. Brain Sei. 5:241-2, 1982. 26. PcrioR R M R PeitoH R. Improving research on and policies for peer-review practices. Behav. Brain Sri. 5:232-3, 1982. 27. Rosenthal R. Reliability and bias in peer-review practices. Behav. Brain Sri. 5:235-6, 1982. 28. Goodstefa L D R Braak K L. Psychology of scientist: XXX. Credibifity of psychologists: empirical study. Psychol. Rep. 27:835-8, 1970. 29. Gordon M D. The role of referees in scientific communication. (Hartley J, ed.) The psychology of written communication. New York: Nichols, 1980. p. 263-75. 30. Z

tader N D. Editing without reviewers: or the review process—a protection from what? Unpublished speech presented to the Society of Editon, 19 May 1969. Cambridge, MA. 6 p. 31. Kronfck D A. Personal communication. 19 June 1986. 32. In defence of the anonymous referee. Nature 249:601, 1974. 33. Armstrong J S. The ombudsman: is review by peers as fair as it appears? Interfaces 12(5):62-74, 1982. 34. La Fölette M C. On fairness and peer review. Sri. Technol. Hum. Vol. 8<4):3-5, 1983. 35. Mooaay I R Mooaay Y R. Anonymous authors, anonymous referees: an editorial exploration. J Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 44:225-8, 1985. 36. Garfield E. Publishing referees' names and comments could make a thankless and belated task a timely and rewarding activity. Essays of an information scientist. Philadelphia: ISI Press, 1977. Vol. 1. p. 435-7. 37. Mknaaa R. Letter to editor. (For open refereeing.) Amer. J. Phys. 43:837, 1975. 38. Ingefffager F I. Peer review in biomedical publication. Amer. J. Med. 56:686-92, 1974. 39. Garfield E. How to use citation analysis for faculty evaluations, and when is it relevant? Parts 1&2. Op. cit.

, 1984. Vol. 6. p. 354-72. 40. Angel M. Publish or perish: a proposal. Ann. Intern. Med. 104(2) 261-2, 1986. 41. Zhnan I. Bias, incompetence, or bad management? Behav. Brain Sei. 5:245-6, 1982. 42. Hntk E I. Medical style and format: an international manual for authors, editors, and publishers. Philadelphia: ISI Press. (In press.) 43 . . How to write and publish papers in the medical sciences. Philadelphia: ISI Press. (In press.) 44. O'Connor M. How to copyedit scientific books and journals. Philadelphia: ISI Press. (In press.) 45. Morgan P. An insider's guide for medical authors and editors. Philadelphia: ISI Press. (In press.) 46. Yankaner A. Review of "A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine" by S. Lock. CBE Views 9(2):51-2, 1986. 47. Pope A. Pastoral poetry and an essay on criticism. (Audra E & Williams A,-eds.) London: Methuen. 1961. p. 244; 326.