Does the Need for Agreement Among Reviewers Inhibit the Publication of Controversial Findings?
Download full text from publisher
References listed on IDEAS
- JS Armstrong, 2005. "Is Review By Peers As Fair As It Appears?," General Economics and Teaching 0502058, EconWPA.
- JS Armstrong, 2005. "Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author’s Formula," General Economics and Teaching 0502057, EconWPA.
- JS Armstrong, 2005. "Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors," General Economics and Teaching 0502059, EconWPA.
CitationsCitations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- JS Armstrong, 2005. "Quality Control Versus Innovation in Research on Marketing," General Economics and Teaching 0502050, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Kesten C. Green & J. Scott Armstrong, 2005.
"Competitor-oriented Objectives: The Myth of Market Share,"
Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Papers
17/05, Monash University, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics.
- Armstrong, J. Scott & Green, Kesten C., 2007. "Competitor-oriented Objectives: The Myth of Market Share," MPRA Paper 81674, University Library of Munich, Germany.
More about this item
Keywordspublication; controversial findings; review;
- A - General Economics and Teaching
NEP fieldsThis paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2005-04-16 (All new papers)
StatisticsAccess and download statistics
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502052. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .