How peer-review constrains cognition: On the frontline in the knowledge sector

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 6, Issue NOV, 2015, Pages

  Cowley, Stephen J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Distributed cognition; Distributed language; Ecological psychology; Embodied cognition; Epistemology; Languaging; Peer review; Representation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84949641901     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01706     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Aizawa, K. (2015). What is this cognition that is supposed to be embodied? Philos. Psychol. 28, 755-775. doi: 10.1080/09515089.2013.875280
2. Alvesson, M. (2013). Do we have something to say? From re-search to roi-search and back again. Organization 20, 79-90. doi: 10.1177/1350508412460996
3. Bailar, J. C. (1991). Reliability, fairness, objectivity, and other inappropriate goals in peer-review. Behav. Brain Sci. 14, 137-138. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00065705
4. Bedeian, A. G. (2003). The manuscript review process: the proper roles of authors, referees and editors. J. Manag. Inq. 12, 331-338. doi: 10.1177/1056492603258974
5. Boaz, A., Grayson, L., Levitt, R., and Solesbury, W. (2008). Does evidence-based policy work? Learning from the UK experience. Evid. Policy 4, 233-253. doi: 10.1332/174426408784614680
6. Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annu. Rev. Inform. Sci. Technol. 45, 197-245. doi: 10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112
7. Bornmann, L., and Daniel, H. D. (2008). Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication. Scientometrics 77, 416-432. doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2
8. Chemero, A. (2000). What events are: commentary on Stoffregen's "Affordances and Events." Ecol. Psychol. 12, 37-42. doi: 10.1207/S15326969ECO1201_3
9. Chemero, A. (2011). Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Cole, S., Cole, J. R., and Simon, G. A. (1981). Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 214, 881-886. doi: 10.1126/science.7302566
12. Cowley, S. J. (2011). Distributed Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
13. Cowley, S. J. (2014). Linguistic embodiment and verbal constaints: human cognition and the scales of time. Front. Psychol. 5:1085. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01085
14. Cowley, S. J., and Vallée-Tourangeau, F. (2013). Cognition Beyond the Brain: Computation, Interactivity and Human Artifice. Dordrecht: Springer.
15. Craik, K. (1943). The Nature of Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Dawkins, R. (1997). Climbing Mount Improbable. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.
17. Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18. Drucker, P. (1969). The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to Our Changing Society. New York, NY: Harper Row.
19. Ernst, E., Saradeth, T., and Reach, K. L. (1993). Drawbacks of peer-review. Nature 363, 296. doi: 10.1038/363296a0
20. Fitzpatrick, K. (2011). Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy. New York, NY: New York University Press.
21. Friedman, L. S., and Richter, E. D. (2004). Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 19, 51-56. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30617.x
22. Gaudet, J. (2014). Investigating Journal Peer Review as Scientific Object of Study. uO Research, 1-11. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10393/31161
23. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., and Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
24. Giere, R. N. (2004). The problem of agency in scientific distributed cognitive systems. J. Cogn. Cult. 4, 759-774. doi: 10.1163/1568537042484887
25. Giere, R. N. (2010). Scientific Perspectivism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
26. Godlee, F. (2002). Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 287, 2762-2765.
27. Gould, T. H. P. (2013). Do We Still Need Peer Review? Lanham, MA: The Scarecrow Press.
28. Hansen, M. (2012). Statement from Michael Hansen, CEO of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division, Regarding Australia Based Sponsored Journal Practices Between 2000 and 2005. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
29. Harnad, S. (1979). Creative disagreement. Sciences 19, 18-20. doi: 10.1002/j.2326-1951.1979.tb01767.x
30. Hirschauer, S. (2009). Editorial judgments: a praxeology of 'voting' in peer review. Soc. Stud. Sci. 40, 71-103. doi: 10.1177/0306312709335405
31. Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., and Kirsh, D. (2000). "Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research," in Proceedings of the ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), Vol. 7 (New York, NY: ACM Digital Library), 174-196.
32. Hu, Z., and Wu, Y. (2014). Regularity in the time-dependent distribution of the percentage of never-cited papers: an empirical pilot study based on the six journals. J. Inform. 8, 136-146. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2013.11.002
33. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge MA: MIT press.
34. Hutchins, E. (2014). The cultural ecosystem of human cognition. Philos. Psychol. 27, 34-49. doi: 10.1080/09515089.2013.830548
35. Huutoniemi, K. (2015). "Peer review: organized skepticism," in To Appear in the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2nd Edn, Vol. 17, ed. J. Wright (Oxford: Elsevier), 685-689.
36. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2:e124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
37. Järvilehto, T., Nurkkala, V. M., and Koskela, K. (2011). "The role of anticipation in reading," in Distributed Language, ed. S. J. Cowley (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 15-31.
38. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective of judgement and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am. Psychol. 58, 697-721. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697
39. Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263-292. doi: 10.2307/1914185
40. Kirsh, D. (2010). Thinking with external representations. AI Soc. 25, 441-454. doi: 10.1007/s00146-010-0272-8
41. Kirsh, D. (2015). "The importance of chance and interactivity in creativity," in To Appear, Pragmatics & Cognition, Vol. 22, eds L. Malafouris, C. Gosden, and K. A. Overmann (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company), 5-26.
42. Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Hum. Factors 50, 456-460. doi: 10.1518/001872008X288385
43. Kravchenko, A. (2006). Cognitive linguistics, biology of cognition and biosemiotics: bridging the gaps. Lang. Sci. 28, 51-75. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2005.02.002
44. Kravchenko, A. V. (2007). Essential properties of language, or, why language is not a code. Lang. Sci. 29, 650-671. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.01.004
45. Kravchenko, A. V. (2009). The experiential basis of speech and writing as different cognitive domains. Pragmat. Cogn. 17, 527-548. doi: 10.1075/pc.17.3.03kra
46. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
47. Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., and Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 64, 2-17. doi: 10.1002/asi.22784
48. Linell, P. (2004). The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its Nature, Origins and Transformations. London: Routledge.
49. Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
50. Love, N. (2004). Cognition and the language myth. Lang. Sci. 26, 525-544. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2004.09.003
51. MacRoberts, M. H., and MacRoberts, B. R. (2010). Problems of citation analysis: a study of uncited and seldom-cited influences. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 61, 1-12. doi: 10.1002/asi.21228
52. Magnus, P. D., and McClamrock, R. (2015). Friends with benefits! Distributed cognition hooks up cognitive and social conceptions of science. Philos. Psychol. 28, 1114-1127. doi: 10.1080/09515089.2014.964857
53. Marsh, H. W., Jayasinghe, U. W., and Bond, N. W. (2008). Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. Am. Psychol. 63, 160-168. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.160
54. Maturana, H. R. (1978). "Biology of language: the epistemology of reality," in Psychology and Biology of Language and Thought, eds G. Miller and E. Lenneberg (New York, NY: Academic Press), 28-62.
55. Maturana, H., and Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Boston, MA: D. Reidel.
56. Merton, R. K. (1942). "The Normative Structure of Science [1942] reprinted in Merton," in The Sociology of Science, ed. N. W. Storer (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1973).
57. Mirowski, P. (2011). Science-Mart. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
58. Neumann, M., and Cowley, S. J. (2013). "Human agency and the resources of reason," in Cognition Beyond the Brain: Computation, Interactivity and Human Artifice, eds S. J. Cowley and F. Vallée-Tourangeau (Dordrecht: Springer), 13-30.
59. Ochsner, M., and Hug, S. E. (2014). A framework to explore and develop criteria for assessing research quality in the humanities. Int. J. Educ. Law Policy 10, 55-68.
60. Park, I.-U., Peacey, M. W., and Munafo, M. R. (2014). Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review. Nature 506, 93-96. doi: 10.1038/nature12786
61. Peirce, C. S. (1982). Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A chronological Edition. eds M. Fisch, C. Kloesel, E. Moore, D. D. Roberts, L. A. Ziegler, and N. P. Atkinson (New York, NY: Indiana University Press).
62. Pontille, D., and Torny, D. (2010). The controversial policies of journal ratings: evaluating social sciences and humanities. Res. Eval. 19, 347-360. doi: 10.3152/095820210X12809191250889
63. Pontille, D., and Torny, D. (2013). "Behind the scenes of scientific articles: defining categories of fraud and regulating cases," in CSI WORKING PAPERS 031 (Paris: Centre De Sociologie De L'innovation).
64. Pontille, D., and Torny, D. (2015). From manuscript evaluation to article valuation: the changing technologies of journal peer review. Hum. Stud. 38, 57-79. doi: 10.1007/s10746-014-9335-z
65. Raczaszek-Leonardi, J. (2012). "Language as a system of replicable constraints," in Laws, Language and Life: Howard Pattee's Classic Papers on the Physics of Symbols, eds H. H. Pattee and J. Raczaszek-Leonardi (London: Springer).
66. Raczaszek-Leonardi, J., and Cowley, S. J. (2012). The evolution of language as controlled collectivity. Interact. Stud. 13, 1-16. doi: 10.1075/is.13.1.01rac
67. Raghavan, R., Dahanukar, N., and Molur, S. (2015). Curbing academic predators: JoTT's policy regarding citation of publications from predatory journals. J. Threat. Taxa 7, 7609-7611. doi: 10.11609/JoTT.o4388.7609-11
68. Ravaud, P. (2015). Generating better evidence to guide peer-review system evolution. Paper Presented at the PEERE Workshop in Split on 18 June, 2015, Paris.
69. Readings, B. (1996). The University in Ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
70. Reinhart, M. (2010). Peer review practices: a content analysis of peer reviews in science funding. Res. Eval. 19, 317-331. doi: 10.1186/gb-2014-15-3-r53
71. Shapiro, L. (2010). Embodied Cognition. New York, NY: Routledge.
72. Shea, C. (2011). Fraud Scandal in Debate Over Practices of Social Psychology. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/As-Dutch-Research-Scandal/129746
73. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization, 1st Edn. New York, NY: Macmillan.
74. Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2, 125-134. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.125
75. Smith, R. (2011). The Trouble with Medical Journals. London: The Royal Society of Medicine Press.
76. Snow, C. P. (2012). The Two Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
77. Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G., and Takács, K. (2013). Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study. Res. Policy 42, 287-294. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.014
78. Steffensen, S. V. (2009). Language, languaging, and the extended mind hypothesis. Pragmat. Cogn. 17, 677-697. doi: 10.1075/pc.17.3.10ste
79. Steffensen, S. V. (2013). "Human interactivity: problem-solving, solution-probing and verbal patterns in the wild," in Cognition Beyond the Brain: Computation, Inteactivity and Human Artifice, eds S. J. Cowley and F. Vallée-Tourangeau (London: Springer), 195-221.
80. Thaler, R. H., and Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge. Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
81. Thibault, P. J. (2011). First-order languaging dynamics and second-order language: the distributed language view. Ecol. Psychol. 23, 210-245. doi: 10.1080/10407413.2011.591274
82. Tuk, M. A., Trampe, D., and Warlop, L. (2011). Inhibitory spillover increased urination urgency facilitates impulse control in unrelated domains. Psychol. Sci. 22, 627-633. doi: 10.1177/0956797611404901
83. Weller, A. (2002). Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
84. Whewell, W. (1847). The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, Founded upon their History, 2nd Edn. London: John William Parker.
85. Ziman, J. (2000). Real Science: What it is and What it Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
86. Zvegintsev, V. A. (1996). Mysli o Lingvistike [Thoughts about Linguistics]. Moskva: Izdatelstvo Moskovskogo Universiteta.