Research peer review/Bibliography: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Daniel Mietchen m (+one) |
imported>Daniel Mietchen m (formatting) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| volume = 47 | | volume = 47 | ||
| issue = 4 | | issue = 4 | ||
<!--DOI commented out for not being wiki-compatible | |||
| doi = 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199604)47:4<302::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-0 | | doi = 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199604)47:4<302::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-0 | ||
--> | |||
}} | }} | ||
*{{citation | *{{citation | ||
Revision as of 05:03, 3 July 2009
- Please sort and annotate in a user-friendly manner. For formatting, consider using automated reference wikification.
- Gordon, R. & B.J. Poulin (2009), "Cost of the NSERC Science Grant Peer Review System Exceeds the Cost of Giving Every Qualified Researcher a Baseline Grant", Accountability in Research 16 (1): 13–40, DOI:10.1080/08989620802689821 [e]
- 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.
- Spier, R. (2002), "The history of the peer-review process", Trends Biotechnol 20 (8): 357–8, DOI:10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6
- Campanario, J.M. (1996), "Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times?", Journal of the American Society for Information Science 47 (4): 302–310
- Judson, H. F. (1994), "Structural transformations of the sciences and the end of peer review", JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 272 (2): 92–4, DOI:10.1001/jama.272.2.92
- Burnham, J. C. (1990), "The evolution of editorial peer review", JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 263 (10): 1323–9, DOI:10.1001/jama.263.10.1323