Abelson, P. H. (1979) Problems of science faculties (editorial). Science 204:133. [CM]Google Scholar

Adair, R. K. (1981) Anonymous refereeing. Physics Today 34:13–15. [RAG]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

American Psychological Association (1963–1969) Reports of Project on Scientific Information Exchange in Psychology. Vols. 1–3. Washington, D.C.: APA, [BCG]Google Scholar

American Psychological Association (1972) Eight APA journals initiate controversial blind reviewing. APA Monitor 3:5. [taDPP]Google Scholar

American Psychological Association (1973) Ethical principles in the conduct of research with human participants. American Psychologist 28:79–80. [JLF, BM]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

American Psychological Association (1980) Summary report of journal operations for 1979. American Psychologist 35:575. [taDPP]Google Scholar

Anastasi, A. (1958) Differential psychology. 3rd ed.New York: Macmillan. [GJW]Google Scholar

Armstrong, J. S. (1979) Advocacy and objectivity in science. Management Science 25:423–28. [JSA]Google Scholar

Armstrong, J. S. (1980a) Advocacy as a scientific strategy: The mitroff myth. Academy of Management Review 5:509–11. [JSA]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Armstrong, J. S. (1980b) Unintelligible management research and academic prestige. Interfaces 10:80–86. [JSA]Google Scholar

Armstrong, J. S. (1982, forthcoming) Research on scientific journals: Implications for editors and authors. Journal of Forecasting and Medical Hypotheses. [JSA]Google Scholar

Bartko, J. J. (1966) The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychological Reports 19:3–11. [GJW]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bartley, W. W. (1962) The retreat to commitment. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. [MJM]Google Scholar

Benwell, R. (1979) Authors anonymous? Physics Bulletin 30:288. [RAG]Google Scholar

Bernard, H. R. (1980) CARS: Computer assisted referee selection. Journal of Research Communication Studies 2:149–57. [HRB]Google Scholar

Beyer, J. (1978) Editorial policies and practices among leading journals in four scientific fields. Sociological Quarterly 19:68–88. [JMB]Google Scholar

Blissett, M. (1972) Politics in science. Boston: Little, Brown. [MB]Google Scholar

Boffey, P. M. (1975) The brain bank of America: An inquiry into the politics of science. New York: McGraw-Hill. [CM]Google Scholar

Bowen, D. D.; Perloff, R. & Jacoby, J. (1972) Improving manuscript evaluation procedures. American Psychologist 27:221–25. [taDPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brackbill, Y. & Korton, F. (1970) Journal reviewing practices: Authors' and APA members' suggestions for revision. American Psychologist 25:937–40. [taDPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Broad, W. J. (1980a) Imbroglio at Yale. 1. Emergence of a fraud. Science 210:38–11. [DdB]Google Scholar

Broad, W. J. (1980b) Would-be academician pirates papers. Science 208:1438–10. [DdB]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Broad, W. J. (1981a) Congress told fraud issue “exaggerated.” Science 212:421. [CM]Google Scholar

Broad, W. J. (1981b) Fraud and the structure of science. Science 212:137–41. [DdB, CM]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Broad, W. J. (1981c) The publishing game: Getting more for less. Science 211:1137–39. [DdB]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977) Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist 32:513–31. [taDPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bruner, J. S. (1962) On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. [IIM]Google Scholar

California may be sued on secret files. (1978) Times Higher Education Supplement, 11 3, p. 5. [CM]Google Scholar

Campbell, D. T. & Fiske, D. W. (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56:81–105. [rDPP]Google Scholar

Caplow, T. & McGee, R. J. (1958) The academic marketplace. New York: Basic Books. [CM]Google Scholar

Carey, W. D. (1975) Peer review revisited. Science 189:331. [MB]Google Scholar

Carta, D. G. (1978) Forum for rejected papers. IEEE Spectrum 15:13. [RAG]Google Scholar

Cherfas, J. (1980) Only the names have been changed to protect … whom? New Scientist, 20 03, p. 950. [Ed.]Google Scholar

Chubin, D. E. (1980) Competence is not enough. Contemporary Sociology 9:204–7. [DEC, CM]Google Scholar

Chubin, D. E. & Connolly, T. (1982) Research trails and science policies: Local and extra-local negotiation of scientific work. In: Scientific establishments and hierarchies, ed. Elias, N., Martins, H., & Whitley, H.. Sociology of the Sciences, vol. 6, pp. 293–311. [ALP]Google Scholar

Cicchetti, D. V. (1980) Reliability of reviews for the American Psychologist: A biostatistical assessment of the data. American Psychologist 35:300–303. [DVC, tarDPP, GJW]Google Scholar

Cicchetti, D. V. & Conn, H. O. (1976) A statistical analysis of reviewer agreement and bias in evaluating medical abstracts. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 49:373–83. [taDPP]Google Scholar

Cicchetti, D. V. & Eron, L. D. (1979) The reliability of manuscript reviewing for the Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1979 Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, pp. 596–600. Washington, D.C.: American Statistics Association. [DVC, tarDPP]Google Scholar

Coe, R. K. & Weinstock, I. (1967) Editorial policies of major economic journals. Quarterly Review of Economics and Business 7:37–43. [JSA]Google Scholar

Cohen, J. (1968) Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin 70:213–20. [GJW]Google Scholar

Cole, J. R. & Cole, S. (1972) The Ortega hypothesis: Citation analysis suggests that only a few scientists contribute to scientific progress. Science 178:368–74. [CM, taDPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cole, J. R. & Cole, S. (1973) Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [CM]Google Scholar

Cole, J. R. & Cole, S. (1981) Peer review in the National Science Foundation: Phase II of a study. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. [Ed.]Google Scholar

Cole, S.; Cole, J. R. & Simon, G. A. (1981) Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 214:881–86. [Ed., rDPP]Google Scholar

Cole, S.; Rubin, L. & Cole, J. R. (1977) Peer review and the support of science. Scientific American 237:34–11. [RTL, CM]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cole, S.; Rubin, L. & Cole, J. R. (1978) Peer review in the National Science Foundation: Phase 1 of a study. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. [DEC, CM]Google Scholar

Collins, H. M. (1981) Stages in the empirical programme of relativism. Social Studies of Science 11:3–10. [MDG]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Colman, A. M. (1979) Editorial role in author-referee disagreements. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 32:390–91. [AMC, taDPP]Google Scholar

Colman, A. M. (1981) What is psychology? London: Kogan Page. [AMC]Google Scholar

Cone, J. D. & Foster, S. L. (in press) Direct observation in clinical psychology. In: Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology, ed. P. C. Kendall & J. N. Butcher. New York: John Wiley & Sons. [JDC]Google Scholar

Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (1979) Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally. [rDPP]Google Scholar

Cox, W. M. & Catt, V. (1977) Productivity ratings of graduate programs in psychology based on publication in the journals of the American Psychological Association. American Psychologist 32:793–813. [taDPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crandall, R. (1977) How qualified are editors? American Psychologist 32:578–79. [RC]Google Scholar

Crandall, R. (1978a) Interrater agreement on manuscripts is not so bad! American Psychologist 33:623–24. [RC, taDPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crandall, R. (1978b) The relationship between quantity and quality of publications. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 4:379–80. [RC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crandall, R. & Diener, E. (1978) Determining authorships of scientific papers. Drug Intelligence and Clinical Pharmacy 12:375. [RC]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crane, D. (1967) The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals. American Sociologist 32:195–201. [MDG, MJM, taDPP]Google Scholar

Crane, D. (1972) Invisible colleges. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [DLE]Google Scholar

Davidson, J. M. & Davidson, R. J., eds. (1980) The psychobiology of consciousness. New York: Plenum. [MJM]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

DeBakey, L. (1976) Reviewing. In: The scientific journal: Editorial policies and practices, pp. 1–23. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Company. [LD]Google Scholar

DeBakey, L. (1978) Communication, biomedical: II. Scientific publishing. In: Encyclopedia of bioethics, ed. Reich, W. T., vol. 1, pp. 188–94. New York: Free Press. [LD]Google Scholar

DeBakey, L. & DeBakey, S. (1976) Impartial, signed reviews. New England Journal of Medicine 294:564. [LD]Google Scholar

Diener, E. & Crandall, R. (1978) Ethics in social and behavioral research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [RC]Google Scholar

Eckberg, D. & Hill, L. (1979) The paradigm concept and sociology. American Sociological Review 44:925–37. [DLE]Google Scholar

Editorial note. (1965) Helgolander Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchen 12 (07): 218. [CM]Google Scholar

Editoral. (1979) Physical Review Letters 43. [RKA]Google Scholar

Endler, N. S.; Rushton, J. P. & Roediger, H. L. (1978) Productivity and scholarly impact (citations) of British, Canadian, and U.S. departments of psychology. American Psychologist 33:1064–82. [taDPP]Google Scholar

Freese, L. (1979) On changing some role relationships in the editorial review process. American Sociologist 14:231–38. [DEC, rDPP]Google Scholar

Garfield, E. (1979a) Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. New York: John Wiley & Sons. [taDPP, MJW]Google Scholar

Garfield, E. (1979b) Journal citation report; A bibliometric analysis of social science journals in the ISI data base. Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information. [taDPP, MJW]Google Scholar

Garvey, W. D. & Griffith, B. C. (1964) Scientific information exchange in psychology. Science 146:1655–59. [BCG]Google Scholar

Garvey, W. D. & Griffith, B. C. (1971) Scientific communication: Its role in the conduct of research and creation of knowledge. American Psychologist 26:349–62. [DdB, BCG, taDPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garvey, W.; Lin, N. & Nelson, C. (1970) Communication in the physical and social sciences. Science 170:1166–73. [BCG]Google Scholar

Gibbs, J. C. (1979) The meaning of ecologically oriented inquiry in contemporary psychology. American Psychologist 34:127–40. [taDPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Glenn, N. (1976) The journal article review process: Some proposals for change. American Sociologist 11:179–85. [DEC]Google Scholar

Goodstein, L. D. & Brazis, K. L. (1970) Credibility of psychologists: An empirical study. Psychological Reports 27:835–38. [JSA, taDPP]Google Scholar

Gordon, M. D. (1980) The role of referees in scientific communication. In: The psychology of written communication, ed. Hartley, J., pp. 263–75. London: Kogan Page. [MDG, JH, RMP, tarDPP, SP]Google Scholar

Gordon, R. A. (1980) The advantages of a simple system of optional published refereeing. Speculations in Science and Technology 3:607–9. [RAG]Google Scholar

Gottfredson, S. D. (1978) Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments. American Psychologist 33:920–34. [RO, taDPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gove, W. R. (1979) The review process and its consequences in the major sociology journals. Contemporary Sociology 8:799–804. [taDPP]Google Scholar

Greenberg, D. S. (1980) Scams and sleaze in science. Clinical Chemistry News 6:5. [DEC]Google Scholar

Griffith, B. & Small, H. (1976) A Philadelphia study of the structure of science: The structure of the social and behavioral sciences' literature. In: Proceedings, First International Conference on Social Studies of Science. Ithaca, N.Y.: Society for the Social Studies of Science. [BCG]Google Scholar

Hagstrom, W. O. (1974) Competition in science. American Sociological Review 39:1–18. [CM]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, J. (1979) Author review of reviewers. American Psychologist 34:798. [taDPP, GJW]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hargens, L. (1975) Patterns of scientific research: A comparative analysis of research in three scientific fields. Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association. [JMB]Google Scholar

Harnad, S. (1979) Creative disagreement. Sciences 19:18–20. [DVC, Ed., WMH, taDPP]Google Scholar

Harnad, S. (1982) Rational disagreement in peer review. (Submitted for publication.) [Ed.]Google Scholar

Hartmann, D. P. & Wood, D. D. (1981) Observational methods. In: International handbook of behavior modification and therapy, ed. Kazdin, A. E.. New York: Plenum. [JDC]Google Scholar

Hawkins, R. G.; Ritter, L. S. & Walter, I. (1973) What economists think of their journals. Journal of Political Economy 81:1017–32. [JSA]Google Scholar

Hendrick, C. (1976) Editorial comment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2:207–8. [GJW]Google Scholar

Hendrick, C. (1977) Editorial comment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 3:1–2. [taDPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hensler, D. R. (1976) Perceptions of the National Science Foundation peer review process: A report on a survey of NSF reviewers and applicants. NSF publication #77–33. [RTL, CM]Google Scholar

Herrnstein, R. J. (1977) Doing what comes naturally: A reply to Professor Skinner. American Psychologist 32:1013–16. [taDPP]Google Scholar

Holden, C. (1979) Ethics and social science research. Science 206:357–340. [rDPP]Google ScholarPubMed

Holden, C. (1980) Not what you know, but where you're from. Science 209:1097. [SP]Google Scholar

Honig, W. (1980a) Concluding anti-relativity. Speculations in Science and Technology 3:361–63. [WMH]Google Scholar

Honig, W. (1980b) Editorials on our evolving policy: Opening statements; Further statements on speculation; “They laughed at Columbus” and other author syndromes; Our first year, Modesty and age “paradigms”; Einstein centennial issue – Alternates to special relativity; Mathematics in physical science, or why the tail wags the dog; Comment on submissions; Some additional thoughts on speculation; Anti-relativity. Speculations in Science and Technology 3:233–43. [WMH]Google Scholar

Honig, W. (1980c) The review process: Before, after and during. Speculations in Science and Technology 3:513–16. [WMH]Google Scholar

Horn, R. E. (1980) Results with structured writing using the information mapping writing service standards. Paper available from the author, Information Resources, Inc., 133 Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington, MA 02173. [JH]Google Scholar

Horrobin, D. F. (1974) Referees and research administrators: Barriers to scientific research? British Medical Journal 2:216–18. [CM]Google Scholar

Huxley, L. (1900) Life and letters of Thomas Henry Huxley. London: Macmillan and Co. [LD]Google Scholar

Hagstrom, W. O. (1974) Competition in science. American Sociological Review 39:1–18. [CM]Google Scholar

Hall, J. (1979) Author review of reviewers. American Psychologist 34:798. [taDPP, GJW]Google Scholar

Hargens, L. (1975) Patterns of scientific research: A comparative analysis of research in three scientific fields. Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association. [JMB]Google Scholar

Harnad, S. (1979) Creative disagreement. Sciences 19:18–20. [DVC, Ed., WMH, taDPP]Google Scholar

Harnad, S. (1982) Rational disagreement in peer review. (Submitted for publication.) [Ed.]Google Scholar

Hartmann, D. P. & Wood, D. D. (1981) Observational methods. In: International handbook of behavior modification and therapy, ed. Kazdin, A. E.. New York: Plenum. [JDC]Google Scholar

Hawkins, R. G.; Ritter, L. S. & Walter, I. (1973) What economists think of their journals. Journal of Political Economy 81:1017–32. [JSA]Google Scholar

Hendrick, C. (1976) Editorial comment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2:207–8. [GJW]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hendrick, C. (1977) Editorial comment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 3:1–2. [taDPP]Google Scholar

Hensler, D. R. (1976) Perceptions of the National Science Foundation peer review process: A report on a survey of NSF reviewers and applicants. NSF publication #77–33. [RTL, CM]Google Scholar

Herrnstein, R. J. (1977) Doing what comes naturally: A reply to Professor Skinner. American Psychologist 32:1013–16. [taDPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holden, C. (1979) Ethics and social science research. Science 206:357–340. [rDPP]Google ScholarPubMed

Holden, C. (1980) Not what you know, but where you're from. Science 209:1097. [SP]Google Scholar

Honig, W. (1980a) Concluding anti-relativity. Speculations in Science and Technology 3:361–63. [WMH]Google Scholar

Honig, W. (1980b) Editorials on our evolving policy: Opening statements; Further statements on speculation; “They laughed at Columbus” and other author syndromes; Our first year, Modesty and age “paradigms”; Einstein centennial issue – Alternates to special relativity; Mathematics in physical science, or why the tail wags the dog; Comment on submissions; Some additional thoughts on speculation; Anti-relativity. Speculations in Science and Technology 3:233–43. [WMH]Google Scholar

Honig, W. (1980c) The review process: Before, after and during. Speculations in Science and Technology 3:513–16. [WMH]Google Scholar

Horn, R. E. (1980) Results with structured writing using the information mapping writing service standards. Paper available from the author, Information Resources, Inc., 133 Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington, MA 02173. [JH]Google Scholar

Horrobin, D. F. (1974) Referees and research administrators: Barriers to scientific research? British Medical Journal 2:216–18. [CM]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Huxley, L. (1900) Life and letters of Thomas Henry Huxley. London: Macmillan and Co. [LD]Google Scholar

Ingelfinger, F. J. (1974) Peer review in biomedical publication. American Journal of Medicine 56:686–92. [taDPP]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Jones, R. (1974) Rights, wrongs and referees. New Scientist 61:758–59. [taDPP]Google Scholar

Kelly, W. (1972) Pogo: We have met the enemy and he is us. New York: Simon & Schuster. [DVC]Google Scholar

Kerr, S.; Tolliver, J. & Petree, D. (1977) Manuscript characteristics which influence acceptance for management and social science journals. Academy of Management Journal 20:132–41. [JSA]Google Scholar

Koestler, A. (1971) The case of the midwife toad. London: Hutchinson. [CM]Google Scholar

Korten, F. & Griffith, B. (ca. 1970) Editorial review in psychological journals: A survey of authors, editors, and readers. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association. [BCG]Google Scholar

Kosinski, J. (1968) Steps. New York: Random House. [CR]Google Scholar

Koulack, D. & Keselman, H. J. (1975) Ratings of psychology journals by members of the American Psychological Association. American Psychologist 30:1049–53. [taDPP]Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. 2d ed., enl. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [DLE, BM]Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. (1974) Second thoughts on paradigms. In: The structure of scientific theories, ed. Suppe, F., pp. 459–99. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. [DLE]Google Scholar

Kumar, K. (1979) Optional published refereeing. Physics Today 32:13–14. [RAG]Google Scholar

Lakatos, I. (1970) Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Criticism and the growth of knowledge, ed. Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A., pp. 91–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [MJM]Google Scholar

Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A., eds. (1970) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [MJM]Google Scholar

Lazarus, D. (1980) Changes in “The Physical Review” and “Physical Review Letters.” Physical Review Letters 45:1605–6. [RAG]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leopold, A. C. (1978) The act of creation: Creative processes in science. BioScience 28:436–40. [CM]Google Scholar

Levenson, H.; Burford, B.; Bonno, B. & Davis, L. (1975) Are women still prejudiced against women? A replica and extension of Goldberg's study. Journal of Psychology 89:67–71. [RO]Google Scholar

Lewis, L. S. (1972) Academic freedom cases and their disposition. Change 4:8, 77. [CM]Google Scholar

Lewis, L. S. (1975) Scaling the ivory tower: Merit and its limits in academic careers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. [CM]Google Scholar

Lindsey, D. (1978) The scientific publication system in social science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [DEC, rDPP, RO]Google Scholar

Lovas, S. (1980) Higher degree examination procedures in Australian universities. Vestes (Federation of Australian University Staff Associations) 23:10–20. [CM]Google Scholar

McCall, R. B. (1977) Challenges to a science of developmental psychology. Child Development 48:333–44. [taDPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCartney, J. L. (1973) Manuscript reviewing. Sociological Quarterly 14:290, 444–46. [RC, taDPP]Google Scholar

McCutchen, C. (1976) An evolved conspiracy. New Scientist 70:225. [taDPP]Google Scholar

McGuigan, F. J. (1968) Experimental psychology: A methodological approach. 2d ed.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. [BM]Google Scholar

McGuire, W. J. (1973) The yin and yang of social psychology: Seven koan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 26:446–56. [taDPP]Google Scholar

McReynolds, P. (1971) Reliability of ratings of research papers. American Psychologist 26:400–101. [DP, taDPP]Google Scholar

Mahoney, M. J. (1976) Scientist as subject: The psychological imperative. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger. [MJM, CM, RO]Google Scholar

Mahoney, M. J. (1977) Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive. Therapy and Research 1:161–75. [JSA, MJM, RO, taDPP]Google Scholar

Mahoney, M. J. (1979) Psychology of the scientist: An evaluative review. Social Studies of Science 9:349–75. [JSA, DEC, CM]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mahoney, M. J. (1982) Psychotherapy and human change processes. In: Psychotherapy re- search and behavior change, ed. American Psychological Association. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. [MJM]Google Scholar

Mahoney, M. J. (in press) Clinical psychology and scientific inquiry. International Journal of Psychology. [MJM]Google Scholar

Mahoney, M. J.; Kazdin, A. E. & Kenigsberg, M. (1978) Getting published: The effects of self-citation and institutional affiliation. Cognitive Therapy and Research 2:69–70. [JSA, MJM, RO, SP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mahoney, M. J. & Kimper, T. P. (1976) From ethics to logic: A survey of scientists. In: Scientist as subject, Mahoney, M. J., ed. pp. 187–93. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger. [JSA]Google Scholar

Manwell, C. (1979) Peer review: A case history from the Australian Research Grants Committee. Search (ANZAAS) 10:81–86. [CM]Google Scholar

Manwell, C. (1981) An open letter to the president of FAUSA. Australian Higher Education Supplement, ed. J. Bremer, 05 27. [CM]Google Scholar

Manwell, C. & Baker, C. M. A. (1979) The double helix: Science and myth in the act of creation. BioScience 29:742–46. [CM]Google Scholar

Manwell, C. & Baker, C. M. A. (1981) Honesty in science: A partial test of a sociobiological model of the social structure of science. Search (ANZAAS) 12:151–60. [CM]Google Scholar

Margulis, L. (1977) Peer review attacked (letter). The Sciences 17:5, 31. [CM]Google Scholar

Markle, A. & Rjnn, R. C. (1977) Author's guide to journals in psychology, psychiatry, if social work. New York: Haworth Press. [taDPP]Google Scholar

Martin, B. (1979) The bias of science. Society for Social Responsibility in Science, P. O. Box 48, O'Connor, A. C. T., Australia 2601. [CM]Google Scholar

Martin, B. (1981a) The dismissal of Dr. M. E. Spautz from the University of Newcastle (New South Wales). Unpublished manuscript, availabe from Dr. Brian Martin, Dept. of Applied Mathematics, School of General Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, A. C. T. 2600. [CM]Google Scholar

Martin, B. (1981b) The scientific straightjacket: The power structure of science and the suppression of environmental scholarship. Ecologist 11:33–43. [CM]Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. (1968a) The Matthew Effect in science. Science 159:56–63. [DdB, CM]Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. (1968b) Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press. [MDG, taDPP]Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. (1973) The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [DLE]Google Scholar

Michie, D. (1978) Peer review and the bureaucracy. Times Higher Education Supplement 08 4, p. 11. [CM]Google Scholar

Mitroff, I. I. (1974) The subjective side of science. Amsterdam: Elsevier. [1IM]Google Scholar

Mitroff, I. I. & Chubin, D. E. (1979) Peer review at NSF: A dialectical policy analysis. Social Studies of Science 9:199–232. [DEC, CM]Google Scholar

Moore, M. (1978) Discrimination or favoritism? Sex bias in book reviews. American Psychologist 33:936–38. [RO]Google Scholar

Moravcsik, M. J. (1980) How to grow science. New York: Universe Books. [Ed.]Google Scholar

Moyal, A. (1980) The Australian Academy of Science: The anatomy of a scientific elite: parts 1 and 2. Search (ANZAAS) 11:231–39, 281–88. [CM]Google Scholar

Neisser, U. (1976) Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology. San Francisco: Freeman. [taDPP]Google Scholar

NIH Grants Peer Review Study Team (1978) Grants peer review. Opinions on the NIH grants peer review system. Report to the Director, NIH. [RTL]Google Scholar

NIH Study Committee, Dean E. Wooldridge, chairman. (1965) Biomedical science and its administration: A study of the National Institutes of Health. Washington, D.C.: The White House. [RTL]Google Scholar

Nisbett, R. E. & Wilson, T. D. (1977) The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alterations of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35:250–56. [RO]Google Scholar

Oromaner, M. (1977) Professional age and the reception of sociological publications: A test of the Zuckerman-Merton hypothesis. Social Studies of Science 7:381–88. [taDPP]Google Scholar

Orr, R. & Kassab, J. (1965) Peer group judgment on scientific merit: Editorial refereeing. Presented to the Congress of the International Federation for Documentation, Washington, D.C. [BCG]Google Scholar

Over, R. (1981) Representation of women on the editorial boards of psychology journals. American Psychologist 36:885–91. [RO]Google Scholar

Patterson, E. H. (1969) Evaluation of manuscripts submitted for publication. American Psychologist 24:73. [DVC]Google Scholar

Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1980) A manuscript masquerade. How well does the review process work? Sciences 20:16–19. [JJB]Google Scholar

Pfeffer, J.; Leong, A. & Strehl, K. (1977) Paradigm development and particularism: Journal publication in three scientific disciplines. Social Forces 55:938–51. [JMB]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pheterson, G. I.; Kiesler, S. B. & Goldberg, P. A. (1971) Evaluation of the performance of women as a function of their sex, achievement, and personal history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 19:114–18. [RO]Google Scholar

Price, D. (1970) Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology and nonscience. In: Communications among scientists and engineers, ed. Nelson, C. E. & Pollack, D.. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and Company. [BCG]Google Scholar

Ravetz, J. R. (1981) Avoiding fraud (correspondence). Nature 291:7. [CM]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Revusky, S. (1977) Interference with progress by the scientific establishment: Examples from flavor aversion learning. In: Food aversion learning, ed. Milgram, N. W., Knames, L. & Alloway, T. M.. London: Plenum. [JH, taDPP, CJT]Google Scholar

Robertson, P. (1976) Towards open refereeing. New Scientist 71:410. [RAG]Google Scholar

Roose, K. D. & Anderson, C. J. (1970) A rating of graduate programs. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. [DP, taDPP]Google Scholar

Rosenblatt, A. & Kirk, S. A. (1980) Recognition of authors in blind review of manuscripts. Journal of Social Service Research 3:383–94. [tarDPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosenthal, R. (1966) Experimenter effects in behavioral research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; rev. ed., New York: Irvington, 1976. [taDPP, RR]Google Scholar

Rosenthal, R. & Rubin, D. B. (1978) Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3:377–86. [tarDPP]Google Scholar

Ross, C. (1979) Rejected. New West 4:39–41. [JSA, CR]Google Scholar

Ross, C. (1980) Editors choice: None of the above. Las Angeles Times, 02 17, p. 3. [JSA, CR]Google Scholar

Ross, P. F. (1981) The sciences' self-management: Manuscript refereeing, peer review, and goals in science. Unpublished manuscript. [taDPP]Google Scholar

Rowney, J. A. & Zenisek, T. J. (1980) Manuscript characteristics influencing reviewers' decisions. Canadian Psychology 21:17–21. [DP]Google Scholar

Roy, R. (1981) An alternative funding mechanism. Science 211:1377. [DEC]Google Scholar

Ruderfer, M. (1980) The fallacy of peer review – Judgment without science and a case history. Speculations in Science and Technology 3:533–62. [RAG, WMH, taDPP]Google Scholar

Rushton, J. P. & Roediger, H. L. (1978) An evaluation of 80 psychology journals based on the Science Citation Index. American Psychologist 33:520–23. [taDPP]Google Scholar

Saracevic, T. (1975) Relevance: A review and framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 26:321–13. [BCG]Google Scholar

Sayre, A. (1975) Kosnlind Franklin and DNA. New York: Norton. [CM]Google Scholar

Scarr, S. & Weber, B. L. R. (1978) The reliability of reviews for the American Psychologist. American Psychologist 33:935. [tarDPP, GJW, JCW]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schaeffer, D. L. (1970) Do APA journals play professional favorites? American Psychologist 25:362–65. [JSA]Google Scholar

Scott, W. A. (1974) Interreferee agreement on some characteristics of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. American Psychologist 29:698–702. [DVC, taDPP, WAS, GJW]Google Scholar

Scott, W. A. (1977) Methodological consensus among journal referees: A follow-up study of JPSP manuscripts. Unpublished manuscript. [WAS]Google Scholar

Shaw, R. & Bransford, J., eds. (1977) Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. [MJM]Google Scholar

Siegfried, J. J. (1970) A first lesson in econometrics. Jottrnal of Political Economy 78:1378–79. [JSA]Google Scholar

Slovic, P. & Fischhoff, B. (1977) On the psychology of experimental surprises. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 3:544–51. [JSA]Google Scholar

Smigel, E. D. & Ross, H. L. (1970) Factors in the editorial decision. American Sociologist 5:19–21. [DVC]Google Scholar

Snizek, W. E., Fuhrmam, E. R. & Wood, M. R. (1981) The effect of theory group association on the evaluative content of book reviews in sociology. American Sociologist 16:185–95. [OLE]Google Scholar

Social Science Citation Index. (1977) Guide and journal lists. Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information. [DLE]Google Scholar

Stnrk-Adamec, C. & Adamec, R. (in press) Breaking into the grant proposal market. International Journal of Women's Studies. [rDPP]Google Scholar

Stinchcombe, A. & Ofshe, R. (1969) On journal editing as a probabilistic process. American Sociologist 4:116–17. [SP, rDPP]Google Scholar

Stumpf, W. E. (1980) “Peer” review. Science 207:822–23. [taDPP]Google Scholar

Swindel, R. F. & Perry, T. O. (1975) A previously unannounced form of the Gaussian distribution: The golden rule of arts and sciences. Journal of Irreproducible Results 21:8–9. [DVC]Google Scholar

Symposium. (1979) Reviews of Landsey's The scientific publication system in social science. Contemporary Sociology 8:814–24. [DEC]Google Scholar

Szasz, T. (1973) The second sin. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. [JSA]Google Scholar

Tobach, E. (1980) “… that ye be judged.” In An evaluation of the peer review system in psychological research, chairman J. Demarest, open forum presented at the American Psychological Convention, Montreal. [taDPP]Google Scholar

Trafford, A. (1981) Behind the scandals in science labs. U.S. News and World Report, 03 2, p. 54. [JSA]Google Scholar

Tuckman, H. P. & Leaky, J. (1975) What is an article worth? Journal of Political Economy 83:951–67. [RC]Google Scholar

Virgo, J. (1974) A statistical procedure for evaluating the importance of scientific papers. Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago. [BCG]Google Scholar

Walster, G. W. & deary, T. A. (1970) A proposal for a new editorial policy in the social sciences. American Statistician 24:16–19. [taDPP]Google Scholar

Watkins, M. W. (1979) Chance and interrater agreement on manuscripts. American Psychologist 34:796–97. [RMP, tarDPP, JCW]Google Scholar

Webb, W. B. (1979) Continuing education: Refereeing journal articles. Teaching Psychology 6:59–60. [taDPP]Google Scholar

Webster, E. C. (1964) Decision making in the employment interview. Montreal: Eagle. [JSA]Google Scholar

Weick, K. E. (in press) Systematic observational methods. In: The handbook of social psychology, ed. G. Lindzey & E. Aronson. 3d ed. [JDC]Google Scholar

Weimer, W. B. (1977) A conceptual framework for cognitive psychology: Motor theories of the mind. In: Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an cological psychology, eds. Shaw, R. & Bransford, J., pp. 267–311. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. [MJM]Google Scholar

Weimer, W. B. (1979) Notes on the methodology of scientific research. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. [MJM]Google Scholar

Weimer, W. B. & Palermo, D. S., eds. (1981) Cognition and the symbolic processes. Vol. 2. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. [MJM]Google Scholar

Weiss, R. J. (1980). The use and abuse of deception. American Journal of Public Health 70:1097–98. [JLF, rDPP]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

White, M. J. & White, K. G. (1977) Citation analysis of psychology journals. American Psychologist 32:301–5. [tarDPP, MJW]Google Scholar

Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. 2d ed.New York: McGraw-Hill. [JLF]Google Scholar

Wolff, W. M. (1973) Publication problems in psychology and an explicit evaluation schema for manuscripts. American Psychologist 28:257–61. [taDPP]Google Scholar

Wolin, L. (1962) Responsibility for raw data. American Psychologist 17:657–58. [JSA]Google Scholar

Wright, R. D. (1970) Truth and its keepers. New Scientist 45:402–4. [LD]Google Scholar

Yalow, R. S. (1978) Radioimmunoassay: A probe for the fine structure of biology systems. In: Les prix nobel en 1977, pp. 243–64. Nobel Foundation. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. [RSY]Google Scholar

Yoels, W. (1974) The structure of scientific fields and the allocation of editorship on scientific journals: Some observations on the politics of knowledge. Sociological Quarterly 15:264–76. [JMB]Google Scholar

Yotopoulos, P. A. (1961) Institutional affiliation of the contributors to three professional journals. American Economic Review 51:665–70. [taDPP]Google Scholar

Ziman, J. (1968) Public knowledge: The social dimension of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [MJM, CM, BM]Google Scholar

Ziman, J. (1976) The force of knowledge: The scientific dimension of society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [AMC]Google Scholar

Zinberg, D. S. (1976) Education through science: The early stages of career development in chemistry. Social Studies of Science 6:215–46. [CM]Google Scholar

Zuckerman, H. (1970) Stratification in American science. Sociological Inquiry 40:235–57. [taDPP]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zuckerman, H. & Merton, R. (1973) Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalization, structure and functions of the referee system. In: The scoiology of science, ed. Storer, N.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [BCG, taDPP, SP]Google Scholar