Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin - 2013 - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.
    Research on bias in peer review examines scholarly communication and funding processes to assess the epistemic and social legitimacy of the mechanisms by which knowledge communities vet and self-regulate their work. Despite vocal concerns, a closer look at the empirical and methodological limitations of research on bias raises questions about the existence and extent of many hypothesized forms of bias. In addition, the notion of bias is predicated on an implicit ideal that, once articulated, raises questions about the normative implications (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   60 citations  
  • The Dedisciplining of Peer Review.Robert Frodeman & Adam Briggle - 2012 - Minerva 50 (1):3-19.
    The demand for greater public accountability is changing the nature of ex ante peer review at public science agencies worldwide. Based on a four year research project, this essay examines these changes through an analysis of the process of grant proposal review at two US public science agencies, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Weaving historical and conceptual narratives with analytical accounts, we describe the ways in which these two agencies struggle with the question (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • From Manuscript Evaluation to Article Valuation: The Changing Technologies of Journal Peer Review.David Pontille & Didier Torny - 2015 - Human Studies 38 (1):57-79.
    Born in the 17th century, journal peer review is an extremely diverse technology, constantly torn between two often incompatible goals: the validation of manuscripts conceived as a collective industrial-like reproducible process performed to assert scientific statements, and the dissemination of articles considered as a means to spur scientific discussion, raising controversies, and civically challenging a state of knowledge. Such a situation is particularly conducive to clarifying the processes of valuation and evaluation in journal peer review. In this article, such processes (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Peer-to-peer Review and the Future of Scholarly Authority.Kathleen Fitzpatrick - 2010 - Social Epistemology 24 (3):161-179.
    The nature of authority is shifting in online scholarly communication. This examination of the history and future of peer review argues that effective online communication requires the development of an open, community?oriented, post?publication system of peer?to?peer review, transforming peer review from a process focused on gatekeeping to one concerned with filtering the wealth of scholarly material made available via the Internet.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Variants of Epistemic Capitalism: Knowledge Production and the Accumulation of Worth in Commercial Biotechnology and the Academic Life Sciences.Maximilian Fochler - 2016 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 41 (5):922-948.
    Capitalist dynamics in knowledge production are not limited to situations in which economic interests influence researchers’ practices. Building on laboratory studies and the French “pragmatic” tradition in sociology, this article proposes an approach to tackle more pervasive capitalist logics at work in contemporary research and their consequences. It uses the term epistemic capitalism to denote the accumulation of capital, as worth made durable, through the act of doing research, in and beyond academia. In doing so, it conceptualizes capitalism primarily not (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • The Gatekeepers of Modern Physics: Periodicals and Peer Review in 1920s Britain.Imogen Clarke - 2015 - Isis 106 (1):70-93.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System. [REVIEW]H. M. Collins & G. D. L. Travis - 1991 - Science, Technology and Human Values 16 (3):322-341.
    Peer review of grant applications, it has been suggested, might be distorted by what is popularly termed old boyism, cronyism, or particularism. We argue that the existing debate emphasizes the more uninteresting aspects of the peer review system and that the operation of old boyism, as currently understood would have little effect on the overall direction of science. We identify a phenomenon of cognitive particularism, which we consider to be more important than the institutional cronyism analyzed in previous studies. We (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  • The Organisation of Science in England.D. S. L. Cardwell - 1957 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 8 (31):252-253.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. [REVIEW]Harriet Zuckerman & Robert K. Merton - 1971 - Minerva 9 (1):66-100.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   90 citations