Peer review as the enforcement of disciplinary orthodoxy

Southern Communication Journal

Volumn 63, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 69-75

  Schwartzman, Roy ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85007875062     PISSN: 1041794X     EISSN: 19303203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10417949709373078     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Bach, T. E., Blair, C., Nothstine, W. L., and Pym, A. L. (1996). How to read "How to get published." Communication Quarterly, 44, 399-422.
2. Baue, A. E. (1993). Peer and/or peerless review: Some vagaries of the editorial process. In R. E. Bulger, E. Heitman, and S.J. Reiser (Eds.), The ethical dimensions of the biological sciences (pp. 127-133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (originally published 1985).
3. Berger, P. L., and Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatisein the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.
4. Beveridge, W. I. B. (1957). The art of scientific investigation (rev. ed.). New York: Norton.
5. Blair, C., Brown, J. R., and Baxter, L. A. (1994). Disciplining the feminine. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 80, 383-409.
6. Brookey, R. A. (1996). Recontextualizing the genetic debate: A response to Condit. Communication Studies, 47, 152-156.
7. Cherry, S. (1996, 24 June). Re: from EduPage … [On-line]. Available http://www.missouri.edu/-rhetnet/peer_review/0002.html.
8. Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9. DeBakey, L. (1982). Authorship and manuscript reviewing: The risk of bias. In Hamad (pp. 24-25).
10. Du Bois, W. E. B. (1995). The souls of black folk (R. Kenan, Intro.). New York: Signet, (originally published 1903).
11. Gross, A. G. (1995). Renewing Aristotelian theory: The cold fusion controversy as a test case. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 81, 48-62.
12. Harcum, E. R., and Rosen, E. F. (1993). The gatekeepers of psychology: Evolution of peer review by case history. Westport, CT: Praeger.
13. Harnad, S. (Ed.). (1982). Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in scientific quality control Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Hickson, M., III, Stacks, D. W., and Amsbary, J. H. (1992). Active prolific female scholars in communication: An analysis of research productivity, II. Communication Quarterly, 40, 350-356.
15. Horrobin, D. F. (1982). Peer review: A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous to science. In Harnad (pp. 33-34).
16. Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. Ling, G. (n.d.). Peer review system suppresses innovation and progress [On-line]. Available http://www.gilbertling.org/lp21.htm.
18. Lovelock, J. E. (1991). Small science. In J. Brockman (Ed.), Doing science (pp. 175-191). New York: Prentice Hall.
19. Mahoney, M. J. (1982). Publication, politics, and scientific progress. In Harnad (pp. 36-37).
20. Peters, D. P., and Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. In Harnad (pp. 3-11).
21. Relman, A. S., and Angell, M. (1989, 21 Sept.). How good is peer review? Letter. New England Journal of Medicine, 321, 827-829.
22. Rich, A. (1979). On lies, secrets, and silence: Selected prose 1966-1978. New York: Norton.
23. Scarr, S. (1982). Anosmic peer review: Arose by another name is evidently not a rose. In Harnad (pp. 53-54).
24. Shank, G., and Cunningham, D. (1996). Mediated phosphor dots: Toward a post-Cartesian model of computer-mediated communication via the semiotic superhighway. In C. Ess (Ed. and Intro.), Philosophical perspectives on computer-mediated communication (pp. 27-41). Albany: State University of New York Press.
25. Sokal, A. D. (1996a). Transgressing the boundaries-toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text, 46-47, 217-252.
26. Sokal, A. (1996b, May/June). A physicist experiments with cultural studies. Lingua Franca, 62-64.
27. Swartz, O. (1997). Disciplining the "Other": Engaging Blair, Brown, and Baxter. Southern Communication Journal, 62, 253-256.
28. Taubes, G. (1993). Bad science: The short life and weird times of cold fusion. New York: Random House.
29. Weinberg, S. (1996, 8 August). Sokal's hoax. New York Review of Books, 11-14.
30. Ziman, J. (1968). Public knowledge: The social dimension of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.