Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The Unbearable Shallow Understanding of Deep Learning.Alessio Plebe & Giorgio Grasso - 2019 - Minds and Machines 29 (4):515-553.
    This paper analyzes the rapid and unexpected rise of deep learning within Artificial Intelligence and its applications. It tackles the possible reasons for this remarkable success, providing candidate paths towards a satisfactory explanation of why it works so well, at least in some domains. A historical account is given for the ups and downs, which have characterized neural networks research and its evolution from “shallow” to “deep” learning architectures. A precise account of “success” is given, in order to sieve out (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction.Arthur E. Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):3-10.
    Peer review is a topic of considerable concern to many researchers, and there is a correspondingly large body of research on the topic. This issue of Science and Engineering Ethics presents recent work on peer review that is both grounded in empirical science and is applicable to policy decisions. This research raises two basic questions; how does current peer review operate, and how can it be improved? Topics addressed include descriptions of how peer review is used in Federal agencies. whether (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Social Biases and Solutions for Procedural Objectivity.L. E. E. J. & CHRISTIAN D. SCHUNN - 2011 - Hypatia 26 (2):352-373.
    An empirically sensitive formulation of the norms of transformative criticism must recognize that even public and shared standards of evaluation can be implemented in ways that unintentionally perpetuate and reproduce forms of social bias that are epistemically detrimental. Helen Longino's theory can explain and redress such social bias by treating peer evaluations as hypotheses based on data and by requiring a kind of perspectival diversity that bears, not on the content of the community's knowledge claims, but on the beliefs and (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation.J. Scott Armstrong - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.
    This paper reviews the published empirical evidence concerning journal peer review consisting of 68 papers, all but three published since 1975. Peer review improves quality, but its use to screen papers has met with limited success. Current procedures to assure quality and fairness seem to discourage scientific advancement, especially important innovations, because findings that conflict with current beliefs are often judged to have defects. Editors can use procedures to encourage the publication of papers with innovative findings such as invited papers, (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • The Principles and Practices of Peer Review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
    The principles and practices of research peer review are described. While the principles are fundamentally generic and apply to peer review across the full spectrum of performing institutions as well as to manuscript/proposal/program peer review, the focus of this paper is peer review of proposed and ongoing programs in federal agencies. The paper describes desireable characteristics and important intangible factors in successful peer review. Also presented is a heuristic protocol for the conduct of successful peer review research evaluations and impact (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Referees, Editors, and Publication Practices: Improving the Reliability and Usefulness of the Peer Review System.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):51-62.
    The documented low levels of reliability of the peer review process present a serious challenge to editors who must often base their publication decisions on conflicting referee recommendations. The purpose of this article is to discuss this process and examine ways to produce a more reliable and useful peer review system.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Mavericks and Lotteries.Shahar Avin - 2019 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 76:13-23.
    In 2013 the Health Research Council of New Zealand began a stream of funding titled 'Explorer Grants', and in 2017 changes were introduced to the funding mechanisms of the Volkswagen Foundation 'Experiment!' and the New Zealand Science for Technological Innovation challenge 'Seed Projects'. All three funding streams aim at encouraging novel scientific ideas, and all now employ random selection by lottery as part of the grant selection process. The idea of funding science by lottery has emerged independently in several corners (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Evaluations as Value-Measurement Links: Exploring Metrics and Meanings in Science.Felicitas Hesselmann & Cornelia Schendzielorz - 2019 - Social Science Information 58 (2):282-300.
    This contribution seeks to provide a more detailed insight into the entanglement of value and measurement. Drawing on insights from semiotics and a Bourdieusian perspective on language as an economy of linguistic exchange, we develop the theoretical concept of value-measurement links and distinguish three processes – operationalisation, nomination, and indetermination – as forms in which these links can be constructed. We illustrate these three processes using valuation practices in science, particularly the journal impact factor, as an empirical object of investigation. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Bias in Peer Review of Organic Farming Grant Applications.Jesper Rasmussen, Vibeke Langer & Hugo Fjelsted Alrøe - 2006 - Agriculture and Human Values 23 (2):181-188.
    Peer reviews of 84 organic farming grant applications from Sweden were analyzed to determine whether the reviewers’ affiliation to one of two types of agriculture (i.e., organic and conventional) influenced their reviews. Fifteen reviewers were divided into three groups: (1) scientists with experience in organic farming research; (2) scientists with no experience in organic farming research; and (3) users of organic farming research. The two groups of scientists assessed the societal relevance and scientific quality of the grant applications based on (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Kuhnian Critique of Psychometric Research on Peer Review.Carole J. Lee - 2012 - Philosophy of Science 79 (5):859-870.
    Psychometrically oriented researchers construe low inter-rater reliability measures for expert peer reviewers as damning for the practice of peer review. I argue that this perspective overlooks different forms of normatively appropriate disagreement among reviewers. Of special interest are Kuhnian questions about the extent to which variance in reviewer ratings can be accounted for by normatively appropriate disagreements about how to interpret and apply evaluative criteria within disciplines during times of normal science. Until these empirical-cum-philosophical analyses are done, it will remain (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • From Manuscript Evaluation to Article Valuation: The Changing Technologies of Journal Peer Review.David Pontille & Didier Torny - 2015 - Human Studies 38 (1):57-79.
    Born in the 17th century, journal peer review is an extremely diverse technology, constantly torn between two often incompatible goals: the validation of manuscripts conceived as a collective industrial-like reproducible process performed to assert scientific statements, and the dissemination of articles considered as a means to spur scientific discussion, raising controversies, and civically challenging a state of knowledge. Such a situation is particularly conducive to clarifying the processes of valuation and evaluation in journal peer review. In this article, such processes (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Introduction.Esther-Mirjam Sent & Arjo Klamer - 2002 - Journal of Economic Methodology 9 (3):265-273.
    Whereas methodological discussions of scientific publication frequently occur in an institutional vacuum, in the sense that they take little account of the process whereby scientific contributions are published, this symposium illuminates the urgency of focusing on the increased dominance of commercial considerations in scientific publication in particular and science in general. It stresses the importance of embarking upon a multi-disciplinary evaluation that starts from a contextual perspective, looks at developments in sciences other than just economics, and goes beyond attributing everything (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Reliability of Peer Review for Manuscript and Grant Submissions: “It's Like Déjà Vu All Over Again!”.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1993 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (2):401-403.
  • Drop Censorship in Science.J. D. Sinclair - 1993 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (2):400-401.
  • Peer Review Reliability: The Hierarchy of the Sciences.Charles Crothers - 1993 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (2):398-399.
  • Reliability is Neither to Be Expected nor Desired in Peer Review.R. Duncan Luce - 1993 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (2):399-400.
  • Policy Considerations for Random Allocation of Research Funds.Shahar Avin - unknown
    There are now several proposals for introducing random elements into the process of funding allocation for research, and some initial implementation of this policy by funding bodies. The proposals have been supported on efficiency grounds, with models, including social epistemology models, showing random allocation could increase the generation of significant truths in a community of scientists when compared to funding by peer review. The models in the literature are, however, fairly abstract. This paper introduces some of the considerations that are (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Social Biases and Solution for Procedural Objectivity.Carole J. Lee & Christian D. Schunn - 2011 - Hypatia 26 (2):352-73.
    An empirically sensitive formulation of the norms of transformative criticism must recognize that even public and shared standards of evaluation can be implemented in ways that unintentionally perpetuate and reproduce forms of social bias that are epistemically detrimental. Helen Longino’s theory can explain and redress such social bias by treating peer evaluations as hypotheses based on data and by requiring a kind of perspectival diversity that bears, not on the content of the community’s knowledge claims, but on the beliefs and (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • The Perils of Centralized Research Funding Systems.Alexander Berezin - 1998 - Knowledge, Technology & Policy 11 (3):5-26.
  • Could Gambling Save Science? Encouraging an Honest Consensus.Robin Hanson - 1995 - Social Epistemology 9 (1):3-33.
    The pace of scientific progress may be hindered by the tendency of our academic institutions to reward being popular rather than being right. A market-based alternative, where scientists can more formally 'stake their reputation', is presented here. It offers clear incentives to be careful and honest while contributing to a visible, self-consistent consensus on controversial scientific questions. In addition, it allows patrons to choose questions to be researched without choosing people or methods. The bulk of this paper is spent in (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Peer Review: Agreement and Disagreement. [REVIEW]Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1996 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19 (3):534-536.
    Rl In response to Somit & Peterson's call for multiple journal manuscript submissions, and consistent with Cicchetti (1991a and 1991b), counterarguments are presented. The policy for multiple submissions is difficult to defend scientifically ana would place an unwarranted burden on both reviewers and journal editors. As such the policy is again rejected. R2 As earlier hypothesized, referee agreement on manuscripts submitted to a major journal in chemistry was significantly higher for acceptance than for rejection. This is consistent with the high (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Legitimizing Basic Research by Evaluating Quality.Rika Levy-Malmberg & Katie Eriksson - 2010 - Nursing Ethics 17 (1):107-116.
    The aim of this study was to use ethical arguments to strengthen the relationship between the concepts of legitimacy and evaluation. The analysis is based on the ethics of Levinas and Buber and is motivated by a sense of responsibility using dialogical ideology as a mediator. The main questions in this study consider the following: Does caring science as an independent academic discipline have the moral responsibility to develop a theory for evaluating the quality of basic research? and Will such (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.David B. Resnik & Susan A. Elmore - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (1):169-188.
    A growing body of literature has identified potential problems that can compromise the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review, including inadequate review, inconsistent reviewer reports, reviewer biases, and ethical transgressions by reviewers. We examine the evidence concerning these problems and discuss proposed reforms, including double-blind and open review. Regardless of the outcome of additional research or attempts at reforming the system, it is clear that editors are the linchpin of peer review, since they make decisions that have a (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • The Social Epistemologist in Search of a Position From Which to Argue.Steve Fuller - 1994 - Argumentation 8 (2):163-183.
    The relevance of Fuller's version of social epistemology to argumentation theory is highlighted, in response to critics who claim that I am not sufficiently critical of the social grounds of knowledge production. Responding to Lyne, I first consider the strengths and weaknesses of relying on economic images to capture the social. Then, I tackle two contrary objections: Brian Baigrie claims social epistemology is “not social enough,” while Angelo Corlett wonders whether it may be “too social.” Finally, I counter Malcolm Ashmore, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Revising as Reframing.David Strang & Kyle Siler - 2015 - Sociological Theory 33 (1):71-96.
    Peer review guides the intensive reworking of research reports, a key mechanism in the construction of social scientific knowledge and one that gives substantial creative agency to journal editors and reviewers. We conceptualize this process in terms of two types of challenges: evidentiary challenges that question a study’s methodology and interpretive challenges that question a study’s theoretical framing. A survey of authors recently published in Administrative Science Quarterly finds that their peer review experience was dominated by interpretive challenges: extensive criticisms, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction.Arthur E. Stamps Iii - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):3-10.
    Peer review is a topic of considerable concern to many researchers, and there is a correspondingly large body of research on the topic. This issue of Science and Engineering Ethics presents recent work on peer review that is both grounded in empirical science and is applicable to policy decisions. This research raises two basic questions; (a) how does current peer review operate, and (b) how can it be improved? Topics addressed include descriptions of how peer review is used in Federal (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Journal Response Time: A Case for Multiple Submission.Albert Somit & Steven A. Peterson - 1996 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19 (3):533-534.
    Peer review poses many challenges for journals. A downside of high rejection rates and sometimes delayed responses in publication decision by journals is a long time period between original submission of a manuscript and its ultimate acceptance and publication. One way of accelerating the process which might be worth considering is multiple submission. This commentary addresses that issue.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • How Editors Decide. Oral Communication in Journal Peer Review.Stefan Hirschauer - 2015 - Human Studies 38 (1):37-55.
    The operative nucleus of peer review processes has largely remained a ‘black box’ to analytical empirical research. There is a lack of direct insights into the communicative machinery of peer review, i.e., into ‘gatekeeping in action’. This article attempts to fill a small part of this huge research gap. It is based on an ethnographic case study about peer review communication in a sociological journal. It looks at the final phase of the peer review process: the decisions taken in the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark