Advantages and dangers of 'remote' peer evaluation

Research Evaluation

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 186-198

  Gläser, Jochen ^a   Laudel, Grit ^a  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33646352456     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/147154405781776085     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. ANU (2004a), ANU: 'University with a difference': The Report of the Committee Established by the Council of The Australian National University to Evaluate the Quality of ANU performance (Canberra, Australian National University).
2. ANU (2004b), Capabilities and Performance Statement (Canberra, Australian National University).
3. Daryl E. Chubin and Edward J. Hackett (1990), Peerless Science: Peer Review and US Science Policy (Albany, NY, State University of New York Press).
4. Domenic V. Cicchetti (1991), The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: a cross-disciplinary investigation', Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, pages 119-135.
5. Stephen Cole, Jonathan R. Cole and Gary A. Simon (1981), 'Chance and consensus in peer review', Science, 214, pages 881-886.
6. Stephen Cole, Leonard Rubin and Jonathan R. Cole (1978), Peer Review in the National Science Foundation. Phase One of a Study (Washington, National Academy of Sciences).
7. Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell (1991), The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields', in Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (Chicago, University of Chicago Press), pages 147-160.
8. Claire Donovan (2003), Social Science in the Service of Science and Technology: A Case of Mistaken Identity within National Research Policy. Paper presented at the New Times, New Worlds, New Ideas: Sociology Today and Tomorrow, TASA 2003 Conference, University of New England, Armidale, 4-6 December.
9. Jochen Gläser (2004), Produzierende Gemeinschaften: Soziale Ordnung und kollektive Produktion (nicht nur) in scientific communities. Manuscript.
10. Jochen Gläser and Grit Laudel (2004), Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen (VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften).
11. Stefan Hirschauer (2004), 'Peer Review Verfahren auf dem Prüfstand: Zum Soziologiedefizit der Wissenschaftsevaluation', Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 33, pages 62-83.
12. Karin Knorr-Cetina (1981), The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (Oxford, Pergamon Press).
13. Grit Laudel (1999), Interdisziplinäre Forschungskooperation: Erfolgsbedingungen der Institution 'Sonderforschungsbereich' (Berlin, Edition Sigma).
14. Renate Mayntz and Fritz W. Scharpf (1995), 'Der Ansatz des akteurzentrierten Institutionalismus', in Renate Mayntz and Fritz W. Scharpf (eds.), Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und politische Steuerung (Frankfurt a. M., Campus), pages 39-72.
15. John W. Meyer and Brian Rowan (1977), 'Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony', American Journal of Sociology, 83, pages 340-363.
16. Greg Myers (1990), Writing Biology: Texts and The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge (Madison, University of Wisconsin Press).
17. Gary M. Olson and Judith S. Olson (2003), 'Mitigating the effects of distance on collaborative intellectual work', Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, 12, pages 27-42.
18. Alan L. Porter, Daryl E. Chubin and Xiao-Yin Jin (1988), 'Citations and scientific progress: comparing bibliometric measures with scientist judgements', Scientometrics, 13, pages 103-124.
19. Fritz W. Scharpf (1997), Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research (Boulder, Westview Press).