|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Shallow Science?
Larry W. Kreuger
University of Missouri
After critiquing the methods Pardeck and Meinert use to assess scholarly output among a small sample of editorial board members, the author questions the expenditure of faculty time and energy on studies that are largely keyboard-driven expeditions used to spy on colleagues and their home institutions. Such is the stuff of shallow science.
Research on Social Work Practice, Vol. 9, No. 1,
108-110 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/104973159900900112

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
G. Holden, B. A. Thyer, J. Baer, J. Delva, C. N. Dulmus, and T. W. Shanks
Suggestions to Improve Social Work Journal Editorial and Peer-Review Processes: The San Antonio Response to the Miami Statement
Research on Social Work Practice,
January 1, 2008;
18(1):
66 - 71.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. T. Pardeck and R. G. Meinert
Improving the Scholarly Quality of Social Work's Editorial Board and Consulting Editors: A Professional Obligation
Research on Social Work Practice,
January 1, 1999;
9(1):
121 - 127.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|
|