Science, Technology and Human Values 16 (3):322-341 (1991)

Abstract
Peer review of grant applications, it has been suggested, might be distorted by what is popularly termed old boyism, cronyism, or particularism. We argue that the existing debate emphasizes the more uninteresting aspects of the peer review system and that the operation of old boyism, as currently understood would have little effect on the overall direction of science. We identify a phenomenon of cognitive particularism, which we consider to be more important than the institutional cronyism analyzed in previous studies. We illustrate with material drawn from observation of grant-awarding commit tees of the Science and Engineering Research CounciL In the concluding discussion, we explore some of the possible implications for the peer review system.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1177/016224399101600303
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,319
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Stages in the Empirical Programme of Relativism.Harry M. Collins - 1981 - Social Studies of Science 11:3-10.
Knowledge and Social Imagery.David Bloor - 1979 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 30 (2):195-199.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Evaluation of Research(Ers) and its Threat to Epistemic Pluralisms.Marco Viola - 2017 - European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 13 (2):55-78.
What is Multi–Level Modelling For?Stephen Gorard - 2003 - British Journal of Educational Studies 51 (1):46-63.

View all 10 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Principles and Practices of Peer Review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction.Arthur E. Stamps Iii - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):3-10.
Commensuration Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (5):1272-1283,.
Peer Review: Selecting the Best Science. [REVIEW]Wendy Baldwin & Belinda Seto - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):11-17.
A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review.Mehdi Dadkhah, Mohsen Kahani & Glenn Borchardt - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (5):1603-1610.
The Ethics of Peer Review in Bioethics.David Wendler & Franklin Miller - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (10):697-701.
'Peer Review' Culture.Dr Malcolm Atkinson - 2001 - Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2):193-204.
‘Peer Review’ Culture.Malcolm Atkinson - 2001 - Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2):193-204.
Understanding Peer to Peer as a Relational Dynamics.Michel Bauwens - 2011 - International Review of Information Ethics 15:41-51.
Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry.David Shatz - 2004 - Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-11-26

Total views
4 ( #1,244,977 of 2,448,683 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #302,300 of 2,448,683 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes