Research peer review/External Links: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Daniel Mietchen (started) |
imported>Daniel Mietchen (+one) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
*In [http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/ Three myths about scientific peer review], Michael Nielsen discusses three common assumptions about peer review, namely that it: | *In [http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/ Three myths about scientific peer review], [[Michael Nielsen]] discusses three common assumptions about peer review, namely that it: | ||
:#has always been there | :#has always been there | ||
:#is reliable | :#is reliable | ||
:#is the way to determine truth in science | :#is the way to determine truth in science | ||
*[http://www.rin.ac.uk/resources/rin-publications/policy-and-guidance/peer-review-guide Peer review: a guide for researchers] — a practical guide, compiled by the [[Research Information Network]] | |||
*[http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57601/ I Hate Your Paper] — a perspective in [[The Scientist]] about broken aspects of the system, and some suggested fixes | |||
Latest revision as of 18:48, 7 August 2010
- Please sort and annotate in a user-friendly manner and consider archiving the URLs behind the links you provide. See also related web sources.
- In Three myths about scientific peer review, Michael Nielsen discusses three common assumptions about peer review, namely that it:
- has always been there
- is reliable
- is the way to determine truth in science
- Peer review: a guide for researchers — a practical guide, compiled by the Research Information Network
- I Hate Your Paper — a perspective in The Scientist about broken aspects of the system, and some suggested fixes