The Scientific Referee System: Difference between revisions
Imported from text file |
infobox: unlink bare volume/issue numbers (removes redlinks to numeric titles) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| published = 1980 | | published = 1980 | ||
| journal = [[Speculations in Science and Technology]] | | journal = [[Speculations in Science and Technology]] | ||
| volume = | | volume = 3 | ||
| number = | | number = 5 | ||
| pages = 573-578 | | pages = 573-578 | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 09:39, 21 July 2026
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | The Scientific Referee System |
| Read in full | Link to paper |
| Author(s) | M H MacRoberts |
| 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.