The policy challenges of peer review: Managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments

Research Evaluation

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 31-41

  Langfeldt, Liv ^a  

^a NORDIC INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN INNOVATION   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749646996     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/147154406781776039     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Aagaard, Kaare and Karen Siune eds. 2002. The Design and Delivery of Inter- and Pluridisciplinary Research. Proceedings from MUSCIPOLI Workshop Two (Danish Institute for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Report 2002/7, Aarhus, Denmark). 〈http://www.afsk.au.dk/ftp/Muscipoli/MUSCIPOLI_Report2. pdf〉, last accessed 4 May 2006.
2. Akerlof, George 1970. The market for "lemons": qualitative uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488-500.
3. Akerlof, George A 2003. Writing the "The Market for 'Lemons'": A Personal and Interpretive Essay. 〈http://nobelprize.org/economics/ articles/akerlof/index.html〉, last accessed 4 May 2006.
4. Bruun, Henrik, Janne Hukkinen, Katri Huutoniemi and Julie Thompson Klein 2005. Promoting Interdisciplinary Research: The Case of the Academy of Finland. Helsinki: Publications of the Academy of Finland 8/05.
5. Campanario, Juan Miguel 1998a. Peer review for journals as it stands today - Part 1. Science Communication, 19(3), 181-211.
6. Campanario, Juan Miguel 1998b. Peer review for journals as it stands today - Part 2. Science Communication, 19(4), 277-306.
7. Ceci, Stephen J and Douglas P Peters 1982. Peer review: a study of reliability. Change, 14(6), 44-48.
8. Chubin, Daryl E and Edward J Hackett 1990. Peerless Science. New York: State University of New York Press.
9. Cicchetti, Domenic V 1991. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: a cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(1), 119-186.
10. Cole, Stephen, Jonathan R Cole and Gary A Simon 1981. Chance and consensus in peer review. Science, 214, 20 November, 881-886.
11. Daniel, Hans-Dieter 1993. Guardians of Science: Fairness and Reliability of Peer Review. Weinheim: VCH.
12. Hackett, Edward J and Daryl E Chubin 2003. Peer Review for the 21st Century: Applications to Educational Research. National Academy of Sciences, USA: National Research Council Workshop. Available at 〈http://www7. nationalacademies.org/core/HacketChubin_peer_review_paper.pdf〉, last accessed 4 May 2006.
13. Hackett, Edward J 2000. Interdisciplinary research initiatives at the US. National Science Foundation. In Practising Interdisciplinarity, eds. Peter Weingart and Nico Stehr. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
14. Kaiser, Robert and Heiko Prange 2002. A new concept of deepening European integration? The European Research Area and the emerging role of policy coordination in a multi-level governance system. European Integration online Papers (EloP), 6(18). 〈http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2002-018a.htm〉, last accessed 4 May 2006.
15. Klein, Julie Thompson 2000. A conceptual vocabulary of interdisciplinary science. In Practising Interdisciplinary, eds. Peter Weingart and Nico Stehr. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
16. Langfeldt, Liv 1998. Fagfellevurdering som forskningspolitisk virkemiddel. En Studie av fordelingen av trie midier i Norges forskningsråd. NIFU-rapport 12/98. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education.
17. Langfeldt, Liv 2001. The decision-making constraints and processes of grant peer review, and their effects on the review outcome. Social Studies of Science, 31(6), 820-841.
18. Langfeldt, Liv 2002a. Decision-Making in Expert Panels Evaluating Research. Constraints, Processes and Bias. Oslo: Unipub. 〈http://www. statsvitenskap.uio.no/fag/polit/disputas/fulltxt/langfeldt.pdf〉, last accessed 4 May 2006.
19. Langfeldt, Liv 2002b. Evaluering av NTNUs program for tverrfaglig forskning. NIFU Skriftserie nr 21/2002. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education.
20. Langfeldt, Liv and Karl Erik Brofoss 2005. Evaluation of the European Young Investigator Awards Scheme. NIFU STEP Working Paper 10/2005, Oslo. 〈http://www.esf.org.generic/1879/13052005EURYIevaluationreport102005. pdf〉, last accessed 4 May 2006.
21. Langfeldt, Liv, Frode Berglund and Peter Maassen 2003. Søknadsbehandling og habilitetsregler i andre lands forskningsråd. Rapport til "Smith-utvalget". Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education.
22. Martin, Brian 2000. Research grants: problems and options. Australian Universities' Review, 43(2), 17-22.
23. Merton, Robert K 1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 5 January, 56-63.
24. Merton, Robert K 1988. The Matthew effect in science, II: cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS, 79(299), 606-623.
25. Porter, Alan L and Frederick A Rossini 1985. Peer-review of interdisciplinary research proposals. Science, Technology and Human Values, 10(3), 33-38.
26. Rinia, E J, T N van Leeuwen, H G van Vuren and A F J van Raan 2001. Influence of interdisciplinarity on peer-review and bibliometric evaluations in physics research. Research Policy, 30(3), 357-361.
27. Roy, Rustum 1985. Funding science: the real defects of peer review and an alternative to it. Science, Technology and Human Values, 10(3), 73-81.
28. Sandström, Ulf, Magnus Friberg, Per Hyenstrand, Kjell Larsson and Daniel Wadskog 2005. Tvärvetenskap - en analys.Venskapsrådet, Venskapsrådets rapportserie 10:2005, Stockholm.
29. Speck, Bruce W 1993. Publication Peer Review: An Annotated Bibliography. Westport/London: Greenwood Press.
30. Travis G D L and Harry M Collins 1991. New light on old boys: cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16(3), 322-341.
31. Vedung, Evert 1997. Public Policy and Program Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
32. Weingart, Peter 2000. Interdisciplinarity: the paradox discourse. In Practising Interdisciplinarity, eds. Peter Weingart and Nico Stehr. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
33. Weingart, Peter and Nico Stehr eds. 2000. Practising Interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
34. Zuckerman, Harriet and Robert K Merton 1971. Patterns of evaluation in science: institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9(1), 66-100.