Peer Review: Organized Skepticism

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 685-689

  Huutoniemi, Katri ^a  

^a NONE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Academic publishing; Accountability; Discipline; Epistemology; Ethos of science; Evaluation; Knowledge production; Organized skepticism; Peer review; Quality control; Science policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 85020920890     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.03019-1     Document Type: Chapter

References (35)

1. Abbott A. Department and Discipline: Chicago Sociology at One Hundred 1999, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago; London.
2. Biagioli M. From book censorship to academic peer review. Emergences 2002, 12(1):11-45.
3. Peer review: the challenges for the humanities and social sciences. A British Academy Report 2007, British Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences, (accessed 28.10.13.). http://www.britac.ac.uk/policy/peer-review/contents.cfm.
4. Broman T. Periodical literature. Books and the Sciences in History 2000, 225-238. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. M. Frasca-Spada, N. Jardine (Eds.).
5. Burke P. A Social History of Knowledge II: From the Encyclopédie to Wikipedia 2012, Polity Press, Cambridge.
6. Burnham J. The evolution of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 1990, 263(10):1323-1329.
7. Burnham J., Sauer J., Gibbs R. Peer-reviewed grants in U.S. trade association research. Science, Technology, & Human Values 1987, 12(2):42-51.
8. Bush V. Science, the Endless Frontier 1945, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
9. Chubin D., Hackett E. Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy 1990, State University of New York Press, Albany.
10. Elzinga A. Features of the current science policy regime: Viewed in historical perspective. Science and Public Policy 2012, 39:416-428.
11. Fitzpatrick K. Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy 2011, New York University Press, New York.
12. Fuller S. Knowledge Management Foundations 2002, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston.
13. Fuller S. Kuhn vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science 2003, Columbia University Press, New York.
14. Funtowicz S. Peer review and quality control. International Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences 2001, 11179-11183. Elsevier. N.J. Smelser, P.B. Baltes (Eds.).
15. Gibbons M. Science's new social contract with society. Nature December 2, 1999, 402:C81-C84.
16. Hackett E., Chubin D. Peer Review for the 21st Century: Applications to Education Research 2003, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
17. Holbrook J.B. Peer review. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity 2010, 321-332. Oxford University Press, Oxford. R. Frodeman, J.T. Klein, C. Mitcham (Eds.).
18. Holbrook J.B., Briggle A. Knowledge kills action - why principles should play a limited role in policy-making. Journal of Responsible Innovation 2014, 1(1):51-66.
19. Horrobin D. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association 1990, 263(10):1438-1441.
20. Kronick C. Peer review in 18th century scientific journalism. Journal of the American Medical Association 1990, 263(10):1321-1322.
21. Lamont M. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment 2009, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
22. Lavelle J. Facts of journal publishing, IV. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 1966, 81(6):3-12.
23. Merton R.K. The normative structure of science. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations 1973[1942], The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. N.W. Storer (Ed.).
24. Polanyi M. The Republic of Science: its political and economic theory. Minerva 1962, 1:54-73.
25. Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery 1959, Basic Books, New York.
26. Readings B. The University in Ruins 1996, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
27. Rennie D. Editorial peer review: its development and rationale. Peer Review in Health Sciences 2003, 1-13. BMJ Books, London. F. Godlee, T. Jefferson (Eds.).
28. Slaughter S., Leslie L.L. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University 1997, Johns Hopkins University Press.
29. Shatz D. Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry 2004, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham.
30. Spier R. The history of the peer review process. Trends in Biotechnology 2002, 20(8):357-358.
31. Weller A. Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses 2001, Information Today, Medford, NJ.
32. Whitley R. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences 1984, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
33. Ziman J. Prometheus Bound: Science in a Dynamic Steady State 1994, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
34. Ziman J. Real Science: What It Is, and what It Means 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
35. Zuckerman H., Merton R. Patterns of evaluation in science: institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva 1971, 9:66-100.