Communicating and compromising on disciplinary expertise in the peer review of research proposals

Social Studies of Science

Volumn 42, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 897-921

  Huutoniemi, Katri ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

criteria; discipline; evaluation; expert judgment; interdisciplinarity; peer review

Indexed keywords

EID: 84869024435     PISSN: 03063127     EISSN: 14603659     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0306312712458478     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Boix Mansilla V,Feller I,Gardner H.Quality assessment in interdisciplinary research and education.Research Evaluation. 2006;15 (1): 69-74.
2. Boltanski L,Thévenot L.The sociology of critical capacity.European Journal of Social Theory. 1999;2 (3): 359-377.
3. Brenneis D.Discourse and discipline at the National Research Council: A bureaucratic Bildungsroman.Cultural Anthropology. 1994;9 (1): 23-36.
4. Bruun H,Hukkinen J,Huutoniemi K,Klein JTPublications of the Academy of Finland 8/05. Helsinki: The Academy of Finland; 2005:.
5. Chubin DE,Hackett EJPeerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press; 1990:.
6. Cicchetti DV.The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation.Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1991;14 (1): 119-135.
7. Cole JR,Cole SPeer Review in the National Science Foundation: Phase Two of a Study. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1981:.
8. Cole SMaking Science: Between Nature and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1992:.
9. Cole S,Cole JR,Simon GA.Chance and consensus in peer review.Science. 1981;214 (4523): 881-886.
10. Cole S,Rubin L,Cole JRPeer Review in the National Science Foundation: Phase One of a Study. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1978:.
11. Eisenhart M.The paradox of peer review: Admitting too much or allowing too little?.Research in Science Education. 2002;32 (2): 241-255.
12. Espeland WN,Stevens ML.Commensuration as a social process.Annual Review of Sociology. 1998;24:313-343.
13. Feller I.Multiple actors, multiple settings, multiple criteria: Issues in assessing interdisciplinary research.Research Evaluation. 2006;15 (1): 5-15.
14. Fuchs SAgainst Essentialism. A Theory of Culture and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2001:.
15. Fuller SKnowledge Management Foundations. Boston, MA and Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2002:.
16. Peer Review Reforms Needed to Ensure Fairness in Federal Agency Grant Selection. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office; 1994:.
17. Grigg LCross-Disciplinary Research. Canberra: Australian Research Council; 1999:.
18. GulbrandsenJM (2000) Research quality and organisational factors: An investigation of the relationship. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.
19. Hackett EJ,Chubin DEPeer Review for the 21st Century: Applications to Education Research. Washington, DC: Prepared for a National Research Council Workshop; 2003:.
20. HemlinS (1991) Quality in science: Researchers' conceptions and judgments. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden.
21. Hemlin S.Peer review agreement or peer review disagreement: Which is better?.Journal of Psychology of Science and Technology. 2009;2 (1): 5-12.
22. Hirschauer S.Editorial judgments: A praxeology of 'voting' in peer review.Social Studies of Science. 2010;40 (1): 71-103.
23. Huutoniemi KOxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Frodeman RKlein JTMitcham C, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010:309-319.
24. Huutoniemi K,Klein JT,Bruun H,Hukkinen J.Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators.Research Policy. 2010;39:79-88.
25. Klein JT.Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: A literature review.American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2008;35:S116-S123.
26. Lamont MHow Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2009:.
27. Lamont M,Fournier M,Guetzkow J,Mallard G,Bernier RKnowledge, Communication, and Creativity. Sales AFournier M, ed. London: Sage; 2007:166-181.
28. Lamont M,Huutoniemi KSocial Knowledge in the Making. Camic CGross NLamont M, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2011:209-232.
29. Lamont M,Mallard G,Guetzkow J.Beyond blind faith: Overcoming the obstacles to interdisciplinary evaluation.Research Evaluation. 2006;15 (1): 43-55.
30. Langfeldt L.Expert panels evaluating research: Decision-making and sources of bias.Research Evaluation. 2004;13 (1): 52-62.
31. Langfeldt L.The policy challenges of peer review: Managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments.Research Evaluation. 2006;15 (1): 31-41.
32. Laudel G.Conclave in the Tower of Babel: How peers review interdisciplinary research proposals.Research Evaluation. 2006;15 (1): 57-68.
33. Laudel G,Origgi G.Introduction to a special issue on the assessment of interdisciplinary research.Research Evaluation. 2006;15 (1): 2-4.
34. Mallard G,Lamont M,Guetzkow J.Fairness as appropriateness: Negotiating epistemological differences in peer review.Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2009;34 (5): 573-606.
35. Marsh HW,Jayasinghe UW,Bond NW.Improving the peer review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.American Psychologist. 2008;63 (3): 160-168.
36. Merton RKOn Social Structure and Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996:.
37. Muller Mirza N,Perret-Clermont A-N,Tartas V,Iannaccone AArgumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practices. Muller Mirza NPerret-Clermont A-N, ed. New York: Springer; 2009:67-90.
38. Olbrecht M,Bornmann L.Panel peer review of grant applications: What do we know from research in social psychology on judgment and decision-making in groups?.Research Evaluation. 2010;19 (4): 293-304.
39. Pomerantz AStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Atkinson JMHeritage J, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984:57-101.
40. Porter AL,Rossini FA.Peer review of interdisciplinary research proposals.Science, Technology, & Human Values. 1985;10 (3): 33-38.
41. Special issue on interdisciplinary research assessment.Research Evaluation. 2006;15 (1):
42. Roy R.Funding science: The real defects of peer review and an alternative to it.Science, Technology, & Human Values. 1985;10 (3): 73-81.
43. Russell MGManaging Interdisciplinary Research. Epton SRPayne RLPearson AW, ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1983:184-202.
44. Shimada K,Akagi M,Kazamaki T,Kobayashi S.Designing a proposal review process to facilitate interdisciplinary research.Research Evaluation. 2007;16 (1): 13-21.
45. Thorngate W,Dawes RM,Foddy MJudging Merit. New York: Psychology Press; 2009:.
46. Travis GDL,Collins HM.New light on old boys: Cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system.Science, Technology, & Human Values. 1991;16 (3): 322-341.
47. Weinberg AM.Criteria for scientific choice.Minerva. 1962;1 (2): 158-171.
48. Whitley RThe Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1984:.