Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Advances in peer review research: an introduction

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 agencies. whether peer review leads to better manuscripts, demographic characteristics of authors or reviewers (status or institutional affiliation), blinding of reviewers, authors, or results, reliability and consistency of reviews, accepting a paper before the study is done, simultaneous submission, and use of dispute resolution procedures such as scientific dialectical and pleading protocols.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Chubin, D. E., & Hackett, E. J. (1990) Peerless science: peer review and U.S. science policy. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chubin, D. E., & Jasanoff, S. (1985) Science, Technology & Human Values 10 (3).

  • Cicchetti, D. V., (1991). The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: a cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14: 119–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. L., & Frost, P. J. (1985) Publishing in the organizational sciences. Richard D, Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, H.-D. (1993) Guardians of science: fairness and reliability of peer review. VCH, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn, R. (1995) NIH study section members acknowledge major flaws in the reviewing system. The Scientist 9 (16): 1,7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, M. (1983) Running a referring system. A.B. Printers Ltd., Leiccster, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargens, L. L. (1990) Variations in journal peer review systems. Journal of the American Medical Association 263 (10): 1348–1352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargens, L. L. (1988) Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review 53: 139–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, D. W., McDonald, D. D. & Roderer, N. K. (1981) Scientific journals in the United States, Hutchinson Ross, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostoff, R. N. (1994) (editor) Evaluation Review 18 (1).

  • Kostoff, R. N. (1995) The handbook of research impact assessment. DTIC Report Number ADA296021. Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, J. (1985) Scientific and technical journals. Clive Bingley Ltd., London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey, D. (1978) The scientific publication system in social science. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M. J. (1976) Scientist as subject: the pyschological imperative. Ballinger, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences (1995) Allocating federal funds for science and technology. Washington: National Academy Press, B-680. http://www.nas.edu

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation (1995a). Grant proposal guide. Arlington, Virginia: National Science Foundation. NSF95-27. http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/cpo/gpg/ch3.html 15 January 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation (1995b) Improving proposal review: summary report of September 1995 workshop on improving peer review. http://www.nsf.gov/25 November 1995.

  • Peters, D. P. & Ceci, S. J. (1982) Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5: 187–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, D. (editor) (1990) Journal of the American Medical Association 263 (10).

  • Rennie, D. & Flanagin, A. (editors) (1994) Journal of the American Medical Association 272 (2).

  • Shepard, G.B. (1995) Rejected: leading economists ponder the publication process. Thomas Horton and Daughters, Sun Lakes, Arizona.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speek, B. W. (1993) Publication peer review: an annotated bibliography. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H. & Merton, R. K. (1971) Patterns of evaluation in science: institutionalism, structure and functions of the referce system. Minerva 9: 66–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Environmental Quality, 290 Rutledge Street, 94110, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Arthur E. Stamps III Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Arthur E. Stamps III Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The papers in this issue are based on presentations by the authors at AMSIE’96. the 162nd National Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Baltimore. Maryland, 8–13 February 1996 in the session entitled Advances in Peer Review Research organized by Arthur E. Stamps III. The papers have been modified following double blind peer review. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of the AAAS or its Board of Directors.

This issue’ guest editor researches, lectures and publishes in the area of physical and social aspects of environmental quality. He is also a practicing architect.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stamps, A.E. Advances in peer review research: an introduction. SCI ENG ETHICS 3, 3–10 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-997-0012-8

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-997-0012-8

Keyword

Search

Navigation