Scientific autonomy, public accountability, and the rise of “peer review” in the cold war United States

ISIS

Volumn 109, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 538-558

  Baldwin, Melinda ^a  

^a AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85053731604     PISSN: 00211753     EISSN: 15456994     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/700070     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Sebastian Anthony, “CERN’s Higgs Boson Discovery Passes Peer Review, Becomes Actual Science,” ExtremeTech, Ziff Davis, Inc., 2012, http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/135756-cerns-higgs-boson-discovery-passes-peer-review-becomes-actual-science (accessed 29 July 2015).
2. Carole Lee, “Commensuration Bias in Peer Review,” Philosophy of Science, 2015, 82:1272–1283
3. Lee, Cassidy Sugimoto, Guo Zhang, and Blaise Cronin, “Bias in Peer Review,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013, 64:2–17.
4. Frank Ingelfinger, “Peer Review in Biomedical Publication,” American Journal of Medicine, 1974, 56:686–692
5. Sheila Jasanoff, “Peer Review in the Regulatory Process,” Science, Technology, and Human Values, 1985, 10:20–32;
6. Harriet Zuckerman and Robert Merton, “Patterns of Evaluation in Science: Institutionalization, Structure, and Functions of the Referee System,” Minerva, 1971, 9:66–100
7. Michael Mahoney, “Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study in Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System,” Cognitive Research and Therapy, 1977, 1:161–175.
8. Aileen Fyfe, Julie McDougall-Waters, and Noah Moxham, “350 Years of Scientific Periodicals,” Notes and Records: The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science, 2015, 69:227–239
9. Melinda Baldwin, “Credibility, Peer Review, and Nature, 1945–1990,” Notes Rec., 2015, 69:337–352
10. John Burnham, “The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990, 263:1323–1329
11. Alex Csiszar, The Scientific Journal: Authorship and the Politics of Knowledge in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2018)
12. Melinda Baldwin, “Tyndall and Stokes: Correspondence, Referee Reports, and the Physical Sciences in Victorian Britain,” in The Age of Scientific Naturalism: John Tyndall and His Contemporaries, ed. Bernard Lightman and Michael Reidy (London: Pickering & Chatto, 2014), pp. 171–186.
13. "'Dirty Work,' But Someone Has to Do It: Howard P. Robertson and the Refereeing Practices of Physical Review in the 1930s," Notes Rec., 2016, 70:151–174
14. Dorris West Goodrich, “An Analysis of Manuscripts Received by Editors of the American Sociological Review from May 1, 1944 to September 1, 1945,” Amer. Sociol. Rev., 1945, 10:716–725
15. Deborah Coen, “Standardizing the Subject: Experimental Psychologists, Introspection, and the Quest for a Technoscientific Ideal,” Technology and Culture, 1993, 34:757–783;
16. Perrin Selcer, “Standardizing Wounds: Alexis Carrel and the Scientific Management of Life in the First World War,” British Journal for the History of Science, 2008, 41:73–107.
17. Melinda Baldwin, Making “Nature”: The History of a Scientific Journal (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2015)
18. Daniel Kennefick, “Controversies in the History of the Radiation Reaction Problem in General Relativity,” in The Expanding Worlds of General Relativity, ed. Hubert Goenner, Jürgen Renn, Jim Ritter, and Tilman Sauer (New York: Springer, 1999), pp. 208–234
19. Lewis Pyenson, “Physical Sense in Relativity: Max Planck Edits the Annalen der Physik, 1906–1918,” in The Young Einstein: The Advent of Relativity, ed. Pyenson (Bristol: Hilger, 1985), pp. 194–214
20. Franz J. Ingelfinger, “The New England Journal of Medicine: Editor’s Report, 1967–1977,” New England Journal of Medicine, 30 June 1977, 296:1530–1535
21. Michèle Lamont, How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 2009).
22. Lutz Bornmann and Hans-Dieter Daniel, “Selection of Research Fellowship Recipients by Committee Peer Review: Reliability, Fairness, and Predictive Validity of Board of Trustees’ Decisions,” Scientometrics, 2005, 63:297–320
23. Patrick Wagner, “‘Preserve of Full Professors’—On the History of the German Research Foundation between 1920 and 1970,” in The German Research Foundation, 1920–1970: Funding Poised between Science and Politics, ed. Mark Walker, Karin Orth, Ulrich Herbert, and Rüdiger vom Bruch (Berlin: Steiner, 2013), pp. 23–40
24. Richard Mandel, A Half Century of Peer Review, 1946–1996 (Bethesda, Md.: National Institutes of Health, 1996), pp. 4–5
25. A. Landsborough Thomson, Half a Century of Medical Research (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1973), pp. 147–161.
26. George T. Mazuzan, “‘Good Science Gets Funded…’: The Historical Evolution of Grant Making at the National Science Foundation,” Science Communication, Sept. 1992, 14:63–90.
27. Thomas O’Toole, “Nation Is Warned of Health Crisis,” Washington Post-Times Herald, 21 Nov. 1967, p. A1
28. Joseph Cooper, “Onward the Management of Science: The Wooldridge Report,” Science, 11 June 1965, 148:1433–1439
29. Colin Norman, “Peer-Review under Review,” Nature, 1975, 258:382
30. Samuel Levy, “A Perspective on Medicaid,” New Engl. J. Med., 1969, 281:297–301.
31. Irvine H. Page, “A Different Peer Review,” J. Amer. Med. Assoc., 1973, 225:1240–1241
32. Franz J. Ingelfinger, “To Impart the Precepts and the Instruction,” Lancet, 5 Oct. 1968, 292(7571):766–767;
33. Thomas Jukes, “Peer Review,” Nature, 1977, 265:203.
34. Lord Zuckerman, “Letter: Cancer Research,” Nature, 1972, 240:497–498.
35. David Kaiser, “Shut Up and Calculate!” Nature, 2014, 505:153–155.
36. Glen Ross Asner, “The Cold War and American Industrial Research” (Ph.D. diss., Carnegie Mellon Univ., 2006)
37. Ronald Kline, “Construing ‘Technology’ as ‘Applied Science’: Public Rhetoric of Scientists and Engineers in the United States, 1880–1945,” Isis, 1995, 86:194–221
38. Laura Stark, Behind Closed Doors: IRBs and the Making of Ethical Research (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2011), pp. 144–158.
39. Daniel Greenberg, The Politics of Pure Science (1967; Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1999), pp. 278–279.
40. Ellen Herman, “Project Camelot and the Career of Cold War Psychology,” in Universities and Empire: Money and Politics in the Social Sciences during the Cold War, ed. Christopher Simpson (New York: New Press, 1998), pp. 97–133
41. John Turner, “Selling Jesus to Modern America: Campus Crusade for Christ, Evangelical Culture, and Conservative Politics” (Ph.D. diss., Univ. Notre Dame, 2006).
42. Peter Dow, Schoolhouse Politics: Lessons from the Sputnik Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1991)
43. R. W. Evans, The Tragedy of American School Reform: How Curriculum Politics and Entrenched Dilemmas Have Diverted Us from Democracy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), Ch. 5
44. Robert Bauman, The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a Gay Conservative (New York: Arbor House, 1986).
45. Elaine Hatfield and G. W. Walster, A New Look at Love (Lanham, Md.: Univ. Press America, 1978)
46. James Kilpatrick, “Science Foundation Needs More Scrutiny,” Sun, 27 Mar. 1975, p. A19
47. Marc Rothenberg, “Making Judgments about Grant Proposals: A Brief History of the Merit Review Criteria at the National Science Foundation,” Technol. Innov., 2010, 12:189–195.
48. William Deringer, Calculated Values: Finance, Politics, and the Quantitative Age (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 2018)
49. Evan Hepler-Smith, “‘A Way of Thinking Backwards’: Computing and Method in Synthetic Organic Chemistry,” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, June 2018, 47:300–337
50. Felisa Wolfe-Simon et al., “A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus,” Science, 3 June 2011, 332:1163–1166
51. Andrew Wakefield et al., “Ileal-Lymphoid- Nodular Hyperplasia, Non-Specific Colitis, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Children,” Lancet, 1998, 351:637–641
52. Michael Lacour and Donald Green, “When Contact Changes Minds: An Experiment on Transmission of Support for Gay Equality,” Science, 12 Dec. 2014, 346:1366–1369
53. Lutz Bornmann, Rüdiger Mutz, and Hans-Dieter Daniel, “Gender Differences in Grant Peer Review: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Infometrics, 2007, 1:226–238
54. Donna Ginther, Walter Schaffer, Joshua Schnell, Beth Masimore, Faye Liu, Laurel Haak, and Raynard Kington, “Race, Ethnicity, and NIH Research Awards,” Science, 19 Aug. 2011, 333:1015–1019
55. Christine Wennerås and Agnes Wold, “Nepotism and Sexism in Peer-Review,” Nature, 22 May 1997, 387:341–343.
56. Paul Nightingale and Alister Scott, “Peer Review and the Relevance Gap: Ten Suggestions for Policy- Makers,” Science and Public Policy, 2007, 34:543–553
57. Kyle Siler, Kirby Lee, and Lisa Bero, “Measuring the Effectiveness of Scientific Gatekeeping,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2015, 112:360–365.
58. Tommaso Colussi, “Social Ties in Academia: A Friend Is a Treasure,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 2018, 100:45–50
59. Chad Wellmon and Andrew Piper, “Publication, Power, and Patronage: On Inequality and Academic Publishing,” Critical Inquiry, 2017, https://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/publication_power_and_patronage_on_inequality_and_academic_publishing/.
60. Larry Wasserman, “A World without Referees,” ISBA Bulletin, 2012, 19:7–8.