Minerva 50 (1):3-19 (2012)
| Authors |
|
| Abstract |
The demand for greater public accountability is changing the nature of ex ante peer review at public science agencies worldwide. Based on a four year research project, this essay examines these changes through an analysis of the process of grant proposal review at two US public science agencies, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Weaving historical and conceptual narratives with analytical accounts, we describe the ways in which these two agencies struggle with the question of incorporating considerations of societal impact into the process of peer review. We use this comparative analysis to draw two main conclusions. First, evaluation of broader societal impacts is not different in kind from evaluation of intellectual merit. Second, the scientific community may actually bolster its autonomy by taking a broader range of considerations into its peer review processes
|
| Keywords | Peer review Disciplinarity Societal impacts Scientific autonomy Interdisciplinarity National Science Foundation National Institutes of Health |
| Categories | (categorize this paper) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s11024-012-9192-8 |
| Options |
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Request removal from index
|
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life.Steven Shapin & Simon Schaffer - 1985 - Princeton University Press.
How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science: To the Icy Slopes of Logic.George A. Reisch - 2005 - Cambridge University Press.
Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?T. S. Kuhn - 1970 - In Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press. pp. 22.
View all 14 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
Philosophy in the Age of Neoliberalism.Robert Frodeman, Adam Briggle & J. Britt Holbrook - 2012 - Social Epistemology 26 (3-4):311-330.
Managing the Growth of Peer Review at the Royal Society Journals, 1865-1965.Pierpaolo Dondio, Didier Torny, Flaminio Squazzoni & Aileen Fyfe - 2020 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 45 (3):405-429.
Co-existing Notions of Research Quality: A Framework to Study Context-specific Understandings of Good Research.Liv Langfeldt, Maria Nedeva, Sverker Sörlin & Duncan A. Thomas - 2020 - Minerva 58 (1):115-137.
Research Portfolio Analysis in Science Policy: Moving From Financial Returns to Societal Benefits.Matthew L. Wallace & Ismael Rafols - 2015 - Minerva 53 (2):89-115.
Opening the Black Box: The Social Outcomes of Scientific Research.Adam Robert Briggle - 2014 - Social Epistemology 28 (2):153-166.
Similar books and articles
The Principles and Practices of Peer Review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact: The National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Criterion and the Question of Peer Review.Robert Frodeman & Jonathan Parker - 2009 - Social Epistemology 23 (3):337-345.
Broad Impacts and Narrow Perspectives: Passing the Buck on Science and Social Impacts.Craig Boardman & Barry Bozeman - 2009 - Social Epistemology 23 (3):183-198.
Promoting F.A.I.T.H. In Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review. [REVIEW]Leigh Turner - 2003 - Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
Peer Review: Selecting the Best Science. [REVIEW]Wendy Baldwin & Belinda Seto - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):11-17.
Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin - 2013 - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.
Peer-Review and Patents: Why the Goose That Lays the Golden Egg is a Red Herring.Sivaramjani Thambisetty & Kartik Kumaramangalam - unknown
The Role of Humanities Policy in Public Science.Robert Frodeman - 2005 - Environmental Philosophy 2 (1):5-13.
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.
Realizing Societal Benefit From Academic Research: Analysis of the National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts Criterion.Melanie R. Roberts - 2009 - Social Epistemology 23 (3):199-219.
The Tragedy of the Common Reviewers: The Peer Review Process.Ulysses Paulino De Albuquerque - unknown
Appendix. Comparing Peer Review and Information Prizes: A Possible Economics Experiment.Robin Hanson - 1995 - Social Epistemology 9 (1):49-55.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2012-02-13
Total views
99 ( #104,561 of 2,432,662 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #464,745 of 2,432,662 )
2012-02-13
Total views
99 ( #104,561 of 2,432,662 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #464,745 of 2,432,662 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads
