Editorial judgments: A praxeology of 'voting' in peer review

Social Studies of Science

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 71-103

  Hirschauer, Stefan ^a  

^a JOHANNES GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Decision process; Editors; Informal communication; Journal peer review; Speech practices

Indexed keywords

EID: 77949404623     PISSN: 03063127     EISSN: 14603659     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0306312709335405     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Abelson, Philip H. (1980) Scientific Communication, Science 209: 60-62.
2. Armstrong, J. Scott (1997) Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation, Science and Engineering Ethics 3: 63-84.
3. Bakanic, Von, Clark McPhail & Rita J. Simon (1987) The Manuscript Review and Decision-making Process, American Sociological Review 52: 631-42.
4. Bakanic, Von, Clark McPhail & Rita J. Simon (1989) Mixed Messages: Referees' Comments on the Manuscripts They Review, Sociological Quarterly 30: 639-54.
5. Blank, Rebecca. M. (1991) The Effects of Double-blind versus Single-blind Reviewing, American Economic Review 81: 1041-67.
6. Bös, Dieter (1998) Gedanken zum Refereesystem in Ökonomischen wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften, in F. Baltzarek, F. Butschek & G. Tichy (eds), Von der Theorie zur Wirtschaftspolitik - ein Österreichischer Weg (Stuttgart: Lucius): 47-72.
7. Bohlin, Ingemar (2004) Communication Regimes in Competition: The Current Transition in Scholarly Communication Seen through the Lens of the Sociology of Technology, Social Studies of Science 34: 365-91.
8. Bott, David & Hargens, Lowell (1991) 'Are Sociologists' Publications Uncited? Citation Rates of Journal Articles, Chapters, and Books', American Sociologist 22: 147-58.
9. Campanario, Juan Miguel (1998a) Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today, Part I, Science Communication 19: 181-211.
10. Campanario, Juan Miguel (1998b) Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today, Part II, Science Communication 19: 277-306.
11. Ceci, Stephen J. & Douglas Peters (1984) How Blind is Blind Review?, American Psychologist 39: 1491-94.
12. Chubin, Daryl & Edward Hackett (1990) Peerless Science (Albany, NY: SUNY Press).
13. Cicchetti, Domenic V.et al.(1991) The Reliability of Peer Review for Manuscript and Grant Submissions: A Cross-disciplinary Investigation, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14: 119-86.
14. Clayman, Steven & Ann Reisner (1998) Gatekeeping in Action: Editorial Conferences and Assessments of Newsworthiness, American Sociological Review 63: 178-99.
15. Cole, Jonathan R. & Stephen Cole (1981) Peer Review in the National Science Foundation (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences).
16. Crane, Diana (1967) The Gatekeepers of Science: Some Factors Affecting the Selection of Articles for Scientific Journals, American Sociologist 2: 195-201.
17. Fiske, Daniel W. & Levi Fogg (1990) But the Reviewers are Making Different Criticisms of My Paper! Diversity and Uniqueness in Reviewer Comments, American Psychologist 45: 591-98.
18. Garfinkel, Harold (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).
19. Guetzkow, Joshua, Michèle Lamont & Grégoire Mallard (2004) What is Originality in the Social Sciences and the Humanities?, American Sociological Review 69: 190-212.
20. Gunnarsdóttir, Kristrun (2005) Scientific Journal Publications: On the Role of Electronic Preprint Exchange in the Distribution of Scientific Literature, Social Studies of Science 35: 549-79.
21. Harnad, Steven (1982) Peer Commentary on Peer Review: A Case Study in Scientific Quality Control (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
22. Harnad, Steven (1985) Rational Disagreement in Peer Review, Science, Technology, & Human Values 10: 55-62.
23. Harnad, Steven (1998) 'Learned Inquiry and the Net: The Role of Peer Review, Peer Commentary and Copyright', Learned Publishing 4: 283-92.
24. Hartmann, Ilse & Friedhelm Neidhardt (1990) Peer Review at the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Scientometrics 19(5/6): 419-25.
25. Hirschauer, Stefan (2004) Peer Review auf dem Prüfstand. Zum Soziologiedefizit der Wissenschaftsevaluation, Zeitschrift für Soziologie 33: 62-83.
26. Hirschauer, Stefan (2009) Streitkultur und Entscheidungsmacht. Peer Review in der Soziologie (Stuttgart: Lucius).
27. Hull, David (1988) Science as a Process. An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press).
28. Knorr-Cetina, Karin (1981) The Manufacture of Knowledge: Toward a Constructivist and Contextual Theory of Science (Oxford: Pergamon).
29. Latour, Bruno (1993) La clef de Berlin et autres leçons d'un amateur des sciences (Paris: La Découverte).
30. Lilley, Simon (2001) Conspiracy, What Conspiracy? Social Science, Funding and the Politics of Accusation, in J. Parish & M. Parker (eds), The Age of Anxiety: Conspiracy Theory and the Human Sciences (Oxford: Blackwell): 166-90.
31. Lock, Stephen (1985) A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine (London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust).
32. Lynch, Michael (1985) Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory (London: Routledge).
33. Lynch, Michael (1998) The Discursive Production of Uncertainty: The OJ Simpson Dream Team and The Sociology of Knowledge Machine, Social Studies of Science 28: 829-68.
34. Mahoney, Michael J. (1977) Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System, Cognitive Therapy Research 1: 161-75.
35. McNutt, Robert A., Arthur T. Evans, Robert H. Fletcher & Suzanne W. Fletcher (1990) The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review, Journal of the American Medical Association 263: 1371-76.
36. Merton, Robert K. (1973) The Sociology of Science (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
37. Myers, Greg (1985) Texts as Knowledge Claims: The Social Construction of Two Biological Articles, Social Studies of Science 15: 593-630.
38. Myers, Greg (1990) Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press).
39. Perlman, Daniel & Elizabeth Dean (1987) The Wisdom of Salomon: Avoiding Bias in the Publication Review Process, in D.N. Jackson & J. Rushton (eds), Scientific Excellence: Origins and Assessment (Beverly Hills, CA, & London: Sage Publications): 204-21.
40. Peters, Douglas & Stephen Ceci (1982) Peer-review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate of Published Articles, Submitted Again, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5: 187-95.
41. Raible, Wolfgang (1997) Konzeptionelle Schriftlichkeit, Sprachwerk und Sprachgebilde, Romanistisches Jahrbuch 39: 16-21.
42. Rigotti, Francesca (2002) Philosophie in der Küche. Kleine Kritik der kulinarischen Vernunft (München: Beck).
43. Roediger, Henry L. III (1987) The Role of Journal Editors in the Scientific Process, in D.N. Jackson & J. Rushton (eds), Scientific Excellence: Origins and Assessment (Beverly Hills, CA, & London: Sage Publications): 222-52.
44. Rosenblatt, Aaron & Stuart A. Kirk (1980) Recognition of Authors in Blind Review of Manuscripts, Journal of Social Service Research 3: 383-94.
45. Sacks, Harvey (1987) On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation, in G. Button & J.R.E. Lee (eds), Talk and Social Organization (Bristol: Multilingual Matters): 54-69.
46. Sahner, Helmut (1982) Zur Selektivität von Herausgebern: Eine Input-Output-Analyse der Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Zeitschrift für Soziologie 11: 82-98.
47. Scheffer, Thomas (2001) Asylgewährung. Eine ethnografische Verfahrensanalyse (Stuttgart: Lucius).
48. Simon, Rita, Von Bakanic & Clark McPhail (1986) Who Complains to Journal Editors and What Happens, Sociological Inquiry 56: 259-71.
49. Smigel, Erwin O. & H. Laurence Ross (1970) Factors in the Editorial Decision, American Sociologist 5: 19-21.
50. Smith, Dorothy (1986) The Active Text: Texts as Constituents of Social Relations, in D. Smith (ed.), Texts, Facts, and Femininity (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press): 120-58.
51. Stichweh, Rudolph (1994) Die Autopoiesis der Wissenschaft, in R. Stichweh, Wissenschaft, Universitä, Professionen (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp): 52-83.
52. Strauss, Anselm (1987) Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
53. Travis, G.D.L. & H.M. Collins (1991) New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System, Science,Technology, & Human Values 16(3): 322-41.
54. Zuckerman, Harriet & Robert K. Merton (1971) Patterns of Evaluation in Science, Minerva 9: 66-100.