Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Markland, Robert E.
1989.
Musings of a Well‐Wvelled Editor.
Decision Sciences,
Vol. 20,
Issue. 4,
Carland, Jo Ann
Carland, James W.
and
Aby, Carroll D.
1992.
Proposed codification of ethicacy in the publication process.
Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 11,
Issue. 2,
p.
95.
Armstrong, J. Scott
1997.
Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation.
Science and Engineering Ethics,
Vol. 3,
Issue. 1,
p.
63.
Jayasinghe, Upali W.
Marsh, Herbert W.
and
Bond, Nigel
2001.
Peer Review in the Funding of Research in Higher Education: The Australian Experience.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
Vol. 23,
Issue. 4,
p.
343.
Jayasinghe, Upali W.
Marsh, Herbert W.
and
Bond, Nigel
2003.
A Multilevel Cross-Classified Modelling Approach to Peer Review of Grant Proposals: The Effects of Assessor and Researcher Attributes on Assessor Ratings.
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society,
Vol. 166,
Issue. 3,
p.
279.
Snodgrass, Richard
2006.
Single- versus double-blind reviewing.
ACM SIGMOD Record,
Vol. 35,
Issue. 3,
p.
8.
Welch, Ivo
2014.
Referee Recommendations.
Review of Financial Studies,
Vol. 27,
Issue. 9,
p.
2773.
Largent, Emily A.
and
Snodgrass, Richard T.
2016.
Blinding as a Solution to Bias.
p.
75.
Zhu, Jia
Fung, Gabriel
Wong, Wai Hung
Li, Zhixu
and
Xu, Chuanhua
2016.
Evaluating the Pros and Cons of Different Peer Review Policies via Simulation.
Science and Engineering Ethics,
Vol. 22,
Issue. 4,
p.
1073.
Kerig, Patricia K.
2017.
Inaugural Editorial.
Journal of Traumatic Stress,
Vol. 30,
Issue. 1,
p.
5.
Rowbottom, Darrell P.
2022.
Peer Review May Not Be Such a Bad Idea: Response to Heesen and Bright.
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,
Vol. 73,
Issue. 4,
p.
927.