Commentary: Peer Review is Alive and Well in the United States

  title={Commentary: Peer Review is Alive and Well in the United States},
  author={A. Rip},
  journal={Science, Technology \& Human Values},
  pages={82 - 86}
  • A. Rip
  • Published 1985
  • Sociology
  • Science, Technology & Human Values
If peer review works so well in science, should it be introduced in policy contexts to improve the quality of the science? Or is the peer review process not as ideal as its proponents say? These two questions are the starting-point for this special issue. After reading the collection, however, I can only respond that they seem to be saying, "It all depends." This impression is partly caused by the heterogeneity of the articles, which address a variety of interesting but often limited problems… Expand
Academic Merit, Promotion, and Journal Peer Reviewing: The Role of Academic Institutions In Providing Proper Recognition
A crisis that threatens to undermine the quality of biomedical publications and the urgency of finding a solution that will permit peer reviewing to be considered by the scientific community as a recognized valuable scholarly contribution is highlighted. Expand
Peer Review: From “Sacred Ideals” to “Profane Realities”
Peer review, a socially structured process of evaluating scholarly and scientific performance, is a ubiquitous condition of role performance in the professoriate and central to the production ofExpand
The republic of science in the 1990s
  • A. Rip
  • Sociology, Political Science
  • 1994
SummaryResearch councils began as channels for state patronage of science (a widespread phenomenon after World War II) and were captured by the scientists: peer review of proposals, panels, boardExpand
De-Facto Science Policy in the Making: How Scientists Shape Science Policy and Why it Matters (or, Why STS and STP Scholars Should Socialize)
Science and technology (S&T) policy studies has explored the relationship between the structure of scientific research and the attainment of desired outcomes. Due to the difficulty of measuring themExpand
What research should be done and why? Four competing visions among ecologists
Information we collect about our planet depends, in part, on the questions scientists ask regarding the natural world. Asking other questions might lead to different innovations and alternativeExpand
as scientific object of study
AUTHOR’S NOTE: This sociological preprint is formatted in a letter style typical in natural science journals: a short text, limited references (30), and no sub-sections. The main target audience isExpand
Protected Spaces of Science: Their Emergence and Further Evolution in a Changing World
Long-term epistemic and institutional developments are essential to understand present changes (and their discussion) of science in society. Particularly important are the emergence and stabilizationExpand
On Peers, Those ‘Particular Friends’
As an outgrowth of the institutionalisation of science, peers have come to enjoy a prerogative making them key actors in the configuration of the exercise of science. Indeed, as referees, they haveExpand
Peer review at the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
A study designed to investigate the peer review system at the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft shows a wide range of criteria used, an uneven distribution of positive and negative evaluation along these criteria, high inter-referee agreement and different degrees of impact of the evaluations on the overall recommendation. Expand
New knowledge ecologies and the global ecosystem of scholarly communications
This article is concerned with developing a philosophical approach to a number of significant changes to academic publishing, and specifically the global journal knowledge system wrought by a rangeExpand


Peer Review at the NSF: A Dialectical Policy Analysis
The controversy over peer review is viewed as a dialectic. The arguments espoused by advocates and critics of the system wherein research proposals are evaluated by advisors to funding agencies areExpand
Chance and consensus in peer review.
An experiment in which 150 proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation were evaluated independently by a new set of reviewers indicates that getting a research grant depends to aExpand
465. See note 3, above.), which plagues scientists even today, especially in competitive fields like molecular biology
  • See John Maddox, "Privacy and the Peer Review System," Nature, Volume
  • 1984
This statement is based on evaluations of Consensus Development Conferences
  • 1984
Scientific Knowledge and Science Policy: Some Foreseeable Implications," European Association for the Study of Science and Technology Newsletter
  • 1983
Peer Review: How Well Is It Working?.
Peer Review m the National Science Foundation
  • Phase One of a Study (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences,
  • 1978
Peer Review m the National Science Foundation . Phase One of a Study
  • 1978
Institutionalisation, Structure and Functions of the Referee System", reprinted in Robert K
  • Merton, The Sociology of Science, Theoretical and Empirical Investigations
  • 1973
See note 3, above.), which plagues scientists even today, especially in competitive fields like molecular biology
  • Nature