Politicizing peer review: The scientific perspective

Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 219-237

  Michaels, David ^a  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 42149147665     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511751776.015     Document Type: Chapter

References (43)

1. U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Research: Peer Review Practices at Federal Science Agencies Vary (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1999) (available at http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99099.pdf).
2. Harriet A. Zuckerman and Robert K. Merton, "Patterns of Evaluation in Science: Instiutionalization, Structure and Functions of the Referee System," Minerva 9, no. 1 (1971): 68-9.
3. Royal Society, "Brief History of the Society," the Royal Society, http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=2176.
4. David A. Kronick, "Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism," Journal of the American Medical Association 263, no. 10 (1990): 1321.
5. John C. Burnham, "The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review," Journal of the American Medical Association 263, no. 10 (1990): 1323.
6. Jerome P. Kassirer and Edward W. Campion, "Peer Review: Crude and Understudied, But Indispensable," Journal of the American Medical Association 272, no. 2 (1994): 96-7.
7. Sandra Goldbeck-Wood, "Evidence on Peer Review: Scientific Quality Control or Smokescreen?" British Medical Journal 318, no. 7175 (1999): 44.
8. Stephen Lock, ADifficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine (London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1985).
9. Richard Smith, "Opening Up BMJ Peer Review," British Medical Journal 318, no. 7175 (1999): 4-5.
10. RobinSmith, "Peer Review: Reform or Revolution," British Medical Journal 315, no. 7111 (1997): 759.
11. Joshua S. Gans and George B. Shepherd, "HowAre the MightyFallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, no. 1 (1994): 165-79
12. Frank Davidoff et al, "Sponsorship, Authorship and Accountability," Journal of the American Medical Association 286, no. 10 (2001): 1232-3
13. Drummond Rennie et al., "Conflicts of Interest in the Publication of Science," Journal of the American Medical Association 266, no. 2 (1991): 266-7.
14. Tom Jefferson et al., "Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review," Journal of the American Medical Association 287, no. 21 (2002): 2786-90.
15. Tom Jefferson et al., "Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review," Journal of the American Medical Association 287, no. 21 (2002): 2784.
16. Philippa J. Easterbrook et al., "Publication Bias in Clinical Research," Lancet 337, no. 8746 (1991): 867-72
17. Anastasia L. Misakian and Lisa A. Bero, "Publication Bias and Research on Passive Smoking: Comparison of Published and Unpublished Studies," Journal of the American Medical Association 280, no. 3 (1998): 250-253
18. Jerome M. Stern and R. John Simes, "Publication Bias: Evidence of Delayed Publication in a Cohort Study of Clinical Research Projects," British Medical Journal 315, no. 7109 (1997): 640-5.
19. Carin M. Olson et al., "Publication Bias in Editorial Decision Making," Journal of the American Medical Association 287, no. 21 (2002): 2825-8.
20. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP), Evaluating Federal Research Programs: Research and the Government Performance and Results Act (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000).
21. U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Research.
22. National Institutes of Health, "Review Procedures for Scientific Review Group Meetings" (available at http://www.csr.nih.gov/guidelines/proc.pdf).
23. Sheila Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990).
24. David H. Guston and Stuart Shapiro, "Procedural Control of the Bureaucracy, Peer Review, and Epistemic Drift" (paper presented at the annual meeting for the Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management, Atlanta, GA, October 29, 2004), 24 (available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=631161).
25. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2003iq/159.pdf
26. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2003iq/87.pdf
27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA Science Advisory Board," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/sab.
28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible Decisions: The Report of the Expert Panel on the Role of Science at EPA (Washington, DC: U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 1992).
29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Policy Council, Peer Review Handbook (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998)
30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science Policy, Science Policy Council Handbook: Peer Review (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2nd ed., 2000).
31. National Research Council, Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000), 19.
32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Policy Council Handbook, 26-7.
33. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/stl/1Peer Review Transcript.pdf
34. Anthony Robbins, "Science for Special Interests," Boston Globe, Dec. 7, 2003
35. http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc id=434.
36. American Public Health Association, "Late Breaker Resolution: Threats to Public Health Science," American Public Health Association, http://www.apha.org/legislative/policy/2003/LB-03-01.pdf.
37. Donald Kennedy, "Disclosure and Disinterest," Science 303, no. 5654 (2004): 15.
38. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2003iq/iq list.html.
39. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2003iq/118.pdf
40. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-03.pdf
41. OMB Watch, "OMB Watch Analysis on Final Peer Review Bulletin," OMB Watch, http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2594/1/232?TopicID=3.]
42. David Michaels, "Doubt Is Their Product," Scientific American 292, no. 6 (2005): 96-101
43. David Michaels and Celeste Monforton, "Manufacturing Uncertainty: Contested Science and the Protection of the Public's Health and Environment," American Journal of Public Health (forthcoming).