New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System

Science, Technology & Human Values

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 1991, Pages 322-341

  Travis, G D L ^a   Collins, H M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BATH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84965682088     PISSN: 01622439     EISSN: 15528251     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/016224399101600303     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Bloor, D. 1973. Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
2. Cole, J.R., and S. Cole. 1981. Peer review in the National Science Foundation: Phase two of a study Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3. Cole, S., J.R. Cole, and G.A. Simon. 1981. Chance and consensus in peer review Science 214(20 November): 881-86.
4. Cole, S., L. Rubin, and J.R. Cole. 1977. Peer review and the support of science Scientific American 237(October): 34-44.
5. Cole, S. 1978 Peer review in the National Science Foundation: Phase one of a study Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6. Collins, H.M. 1981. Stages in the empirical programme of relativism Social Studies of Science 11: 3-10.
7. Collins, H.M. 1985. The possibilities of science policy Social Studies of Science 15: 554-58.
8. Collins, H.M. 1986. Dimensions of debate [review of Whitley (1984)] Social Studies of Science 16: 557-63.
9. Gustafson, T. 1975. The controversy over peer review Science 190(12 December): 1060-1066.
10. McCullough, J. 1989. First comprehensive survey of NSF applicants focuses on their concerns about proposal review Science, Technology, & Human Values 14: 78-88.
11. Mitroff, I.I., and D.E. Chubin. 1979. Peer review at NSF: A dialectical policy analysis Social Studies of Science 9: 199-232.
12. Mullins, N.C. 1982. The Cole and Cole study of the peer review system in the National Science Foundation Indiana University, Bloomington. Manuscript.
13. Myers, G. Forthcoming. Conflicting perceptions of plans for an academic research centre Research Policy.
14. National Science Foundation. 1988. Proposal review at NSF: Perceptions of principal investigators. NSF Report no. 88-4 Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
15. Porter, A.L., and F.A. Rossini. 1985. Peer review of interdisciplinary research proposals Scrence, Technology, & Human Values 10: 33-38.
16. Roose, K.D., and C.J. Andersen. 1971. A rating of graduate programs. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
17. Roy, R. 1985. Funding science: The real defects of peer review and an alternative to it Science, Technology, & Human Values 10: 73-81.
18. Wade, N. 1973. Peer review system: How to hand out money fairly Science 179(12 January): 158-161.
19. Walsh, J. 1975a. NSF and its critics in Congress: New pressures on peer review Science 188 (6 June): 999-1001.
20. Walsh, J. 1975b. Peer review: NSF faces changes, the question is how extensive Science 190 (17 October): 253-56.
21. Whitley, R. 1984. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences Oxford: Clarendon Press.
22. Zuckerman, H., and R.K. Merton. 1971. Institutionalized patterns of evaluation in science Minerva 9(January): 66-100.