Minerva 50 (1):3-19 (2012)

Authors
Adam Briggle
University of North Texas
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
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: 59,775
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

We Have Never Been Modern.Bruno Latour - 1993 - Harvard 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

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.
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.
The Role of Humanities Policy in Public Science.Robert Frodeman - 2005 - Environmental Philosophy 2 (1):5-13.

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 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes