The Scientific Referee System: Difference between revisions
Imported from text file |
Imported from text file |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
There has been very little written about the scientific referee system but a lot has been implied. It seems to be widely believed that the system works well, even though there are cases of disparate judgement. These however ~ usually explained away in an ad hoc fashion. We find that novelty is characteristically resisted by scientists and suggest reasons for this.[[Category:Scientific Paper]] | There has been very little written about the scientific referee system but a lot has been implied. It seems to be widely believed that the system works well, even though there are cases of disparate judgement. These however ~ usually explained away in an ad hoc fashion. We find that novelty is characteristically resisted by scientists and suggest reasons for this. | ||
[[Category:Scientific Paper|scientific referee]] | |||
Latest revision as of 13:26, 1 January 2017
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | The Scientific Referee System |
| Read in full | Link to paper |
| Author(s) | M H MacRoberts |
| Keywords | {{{keywords}}} |
| Published | 1980 |
| Journal | Speculations in Science and Technology |
| Volume | 3 |
| Number | 5 |
| Pages | 573-578 |
Read the full paper here
Abstract
There has been very little written about the scientific referee system but a lot has been implied. It seems to be widely believed that the system works well, even though there are cases of disparate judgement. These however ~ usually explained away in an ad hoc fashion. We find that novelty is characteristically resisted by scientists and suggest reasons for this.