Aggregation machines-a political science of science approach to the future of the peer review system

Knowledge, Power, and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis

Volumn , Issue , 2018, Pages 391-414

  Rip, Arie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937380582     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (25)

1. Biagioli, M. (1993). Galileo, Courtier. The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
2. Blume, S.S. (1974). Toward a Political Sociology of Science. New York: The Free Press, MacMillan
3. Braun, D. (1993). Who Governs Intermediary Agencies? Principle-Agent Relations in Research Policy-Making, Journal of Public Policy 13(2), 135-162
4. Braun, D. (1995). Die Forschungspolitische Steuerung der Wissenschaft. Ein Beitrag zum "Kooperativen Staat." Heidelberg: Institut fü r Politische Wissenschaft, Universität Heidelberg. Habilitationsschrift
5. Bush, V. (1990). Science-The Endless Frontier. A Report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research. Washington, D.C.: July 1945. Reprinted, with Appendices and a Foreword by Daniel J. Kevles, by the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C
6. Chubin, D.E. and E.J. Hackett (1990). Peerless Science. Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. Albany, N. Y: State University of New York Press
7. Crozier, M. and E. Friedberg (1980). Actors & Systems. The Politics of Collective Action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
8. De La BruhPze, AdriA. Albert (1992). Political Construction of Technology. Radio-Active Waste Technology in the USA, 1945-1970. Delft: Eburon. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Twente
9. Etzkowitz, H. and L. Leydesdorff, (Eds.) (1997). Universities in the Global Knowledge Economy: A Co-Evolution of University-Industry-Govemment Relations. London: Cassell Academic
10. Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott and M. Trow (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage
11. Greenberg, D.S. (1969). The Politics of American Science. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books
12. Guston, D. (1996). Principal-Agent Theory and the Structure of Science Policy. Science and Public Policy 23(4), 229-240
13. Irvine, J., andB. Martin. (1984). Foresight in Science. London; Oxford University Press
14. McCullough, J. (1989). First Comprehensive Survey of NSF Applicants Focuses on Their Concerns about Proposal Review, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 14(1), 78-88
15. Meulen, B.J.R. van der (forthcoming). Science Policies as Principal Agent Games. Institutionalization and Path Dependency in the Relation between Government and Science, Research Policy, forthcoming
16. Meulen, B.J.R. van der, and A. Rip (1997). Indications and Indicators of Societal Quality of Research. Enschede: University of Twente. Study commissioned by the Consultative Committee of the Advisory Councils on Research
17. Rip, A. (1988a). Processes in Science Policy-And Their Study in: M. Gosselin and F. Demeyere (Eds.), Science and Society. Brussels: Centre fo r Empirical Epistemology, Free University of Brussels, 34-54
18. Rip, A. (1988b). Contextual Transformations in Contemporary Science, in: A. Jamison (Ed.), Keeping Science Straight. A Critical Look at the Assessment of Science and Technology. Gothenburg: Department of Theory of Science, University of Gothenburg, 59-85
19. Rip, A. (1997). A Cognitive Approach to Relevance of Science, Social Science Information 36(4), 615-640
20. Rip, A. (1998) The Republic of Science in the 1990s, Higher Education 28, 3-23
21. Roy, R. (1985). Funding Science: The Real Defects of Peer Review and an Alternative to It, Science, Technology, & Human Values 10(3), 73-81
22. Spaapen, J. and Ch. Sylvain (1994). Societal Quality of Research. Toward a Method for the Assessment of the Potential Value of Research for Society. London: Science Policy Support Group. SPSG Concept Paper No. 13
23. Travis, G.D.L. and H.M. Collins (1991). New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System, Science, Technology, & Human Values 16(3), 322-341
24. Wood, F.Q.(1997). The Peer Review Process. Canberra: National Board of Employment, Education and Training, Australian Research Council. Commissioned Report No. 54
25. Ziman, J. (1984) The Collectivization of Science, Proceedings of the Royal Society, B219, 1-19. J.D. Bernal Lecture