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
24 GARFIELD: REFEREEING AND PEER REVIEW, PART 1 Armstrong J S. Peer review of scientific papers. J. Biol. Resp. Modif. 3:10-4, 1984. Beck C W. Trouble in the hedgerows. J. Archaeol. Sei. 12:405-9. 1985. Crane D. The gatekeepers of science: some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals. Amer. SocioI. 2:195-201, 1967. Dixon G F, Schonfeld S A, Airman M & Whhcomb M E. The peer review and editorial process: a limited evaluation. Amer. J. Med. 74:494-5, 1983. Fox T. Crisis in communication. London. UK: Athlone Press, 1965. 59 p. Gardner M I, Altnun D G, Jone« DK1 Machin D. Is the statistical assessment of papers submitted to the "British Medical Journal" effective? Brit. Med. J. 286:1485-8, 1983. Hamad S. Rational disagreement in peer review. Sei. Technol. Hum. Val. 10(3):55-62, 1985. Review of "A difficult balance" by S. Lock. Nature (In press.) , ed. Peer commentary on peer review: a case study in scientific quality control. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982. 71 p. (Reprinted from: Behav. Brain Sei. 5:185-255, 1982.) Inhasz S, Calvert E, Jackson T, Kroaick D A tt Shipmaa J. Acceptance and rejection of manuscripts. IEEE Trans. Prof. Comm. PC18:177-85, 1975. Koahiand D E. Memorandum to Universal Science Foundation. Science 229:921, 1985. Light R ) & Piliemer D B. Summing up. The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984. 191 p. Lloyd J E. On watersheds and peers, publication, pimps and panache. (An editorial abstract.) Fla Entomol. 68:134-9, 1985. Maddox I. Privacy and the peer-review system. Nature 312:497, 1984, Mahoney M I. Open exchange and epistemic progress. Amer. Psychol. 40:2939, 1985. Meadows A I. The problem of refereeing. Scientia 112:787-94, 1977. MHer A C & Sous S L. Criteria for identifying a refereed journal. J. Higher Educ. 55:673-99. 1984. Morgan P P. When reviewers disagree. Can. Med. Assn. J. 129:1172-3, 1983. Anonymity in medical journals. Can. Med. Assn. J. 131:1007-8, 1984. Author, editor and reviewer: how manuscripts become journal articles. Can. Med. Assn. J. 124:664-6, 1981. Patterson K It BaOar I C. A review of journal peer review. (Warren K S, ed.) Selectivity in information systems: survival of the fittest. New York: Praeger, 1985. p. 64-82. Shfa E. The confidentiality and anonymity of assessment. Minerva 13:135-51, 1975. Slvcr S. Ethical questions in the peer review system. ASM News. 46:302-6, 1980. Smith B M ft Googh P B. Editors speak out on reiereeing. Phi Delta Kappan 65:637-9. 1984. Sloaael T P. Reviewer status and review quality: experience of the Journal of Clinical Investigation. N. Engl. J Med. 312:658-9, 1985. Strasbnrger V C. Righting medical writing. JA MA —J. Am. Med. Assn. 254:178990, 1985. Snppa R 11 Zirkel P A. The importance of refereed publications: a national survey. Phi Delia Kappan 64:739-40. 1983. Whheharat G I. Interrater agreement for journal manuscript reviews. Amer. Psychol. 39:22-8, 1984. Interrater agreement for reviews for Developmental Review. Develop. Rev. 3:73-8, 1983. . On lies, damned lies, and statistics: measuring interrater agreement. Amer. Psycho!. 40:568-9. 1985.
