Although peer review provides the primary mechamism for allocating research funds, very few people have undertaken any serious study of the issue. Most of the literature surrounding peer review comes from individuals who have experienced specific problems with the system. The one detail that does stand out is that though policy makers and researchers seem to view peer review as a specific process, no single form exists. In fact, almost agency and foundation has its own unique process. This presentation will explore the concept of peer review and highlight its strengths and weaknesses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alberts, B., & Shine, K. (1994, December 9). Scientists and the integrity of research. Science, 266, 1660-1661.
2.
Aldhous, P. (1991, January 24). Peer review: A cleanish bill of health. Nature, 349, 272-272.
3.
Anderson, A. (1989, May 18). Peer review: Does it work efficiently?Nature, 339, 164-164.
4.
Berezin, A. A. (1993). The SSC and peer review. Physics World, 6(12), 19-19.
5.
Berry, B.J.L. (1995). Peer review: Is it working?Urban Geography, 16(8), 655-656.
6.
Bower, B. (1991, June 22). Peer review under fire. Science News, 136, 394-395.
7.
Bush, V. (1945). Science—the endless frontier. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
8.
Chubin, D. E., & Hackett, E. J. (1990). Peerless science: Peer review and U.S. science policy. Albany: SUNY Press.
9.
Cohen, J. (1996, Janury 5). AIDS trials take on peer review. Science, 271, 20-21.
10.
Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
11.
Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1981). Peer review in the National Science Foundation: Phase two of a study. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
12.
Dye, L. (1995a, October 25). Peer review gets a long, critical look. Los Angeles Times, p. D5-D5.
13.
Dye, L. (1995b, November 8). Peer review: Web comments. Prodigy Services Company.
14.
Ellis, S. J. (1995). Peer review and conflicts of interest. Journal of Internal Medicine, 237(3), 219-220.
15.
Ernst, E., Saradeth, T., & Resch, K. L. (1993, May 27). Drawbacks of peer review. Nature, 363, 296-296.
16.
Fermin, C. D. (1995, December 11). Funding mechanisms. The Scientist, 9(24), 13-13.
17.
Finn, R. (1995, August 21). NIH study section members acknowledge imperfections in the reviewing system. The Scientist, 9(16), 1-1.
18.
Frei, J. V. (1993). Peer review anonymity. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 149(7), 928-928.
19.
Garfield, E. (1996, February 19). “Cannibals” at the gates of Congress: A call for activism, not complacency. The Scientist, 10(4), 10-10.
20.
Garfunkel, J. M., Lawson, E. E., & Hamrick, H. J. (1990, March 9). Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author’s evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts. JAMA, 263, 1376-1378.
21.
Glantz, S. A., & Bero, L. (1994, July 13). Inappropriate and appropriate selection of ‘peers’ in grant review. JAMA, 272, 114-116.
22.
Goodstein, D. L. (1995a, Summer). After the big crunch. WQ Science, 53-60.
23.
Goodstein, D. (1995b, June). Ethics and peer review. Bio/technology, 13(6), 618-618.
24.
Goodstein, D. (1995c, September-October). Macroscope—peer review and the big crunch. American scientist, 83(5), 401-402.
25.
Goodstein, D. (1995d, September 15) Quotable: “Business as usual is no longer a real option....”Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B6-B6.
26.
Goodstein, D. L. (1997). The big crunch [FYI document, Eos. 78, no. 32, pp. 329-336]. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
27.
Heginbotham, S. (1996). Comments to: Report of the committee on rating of grant applications—National Institutes of Health. Unpublished manuscript.
28.
Herman, B. (1996, February 5). NIH reviewers: Doing their best. The Scientist, 10(3), 12-12.
29.
Judson, H. F. (1994, July 13). Structural transformations of the sciences and the end of peer review. JAMA, 272, 92-94.
30.
Lehmann, K. K., & Scoles, G. (1995, September). Name that reviewer. Physics Today, p. 125-125.
31.
Mandel, R. (1996). A half century of peer review: 1946-1996. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
32.
Marshall, E. (1994, March 4). Peer review reform get good review. Science, 265, 1212-1213.
33.
Marshall, E. (1995, December 22). Suit alleges misuse of peer review. Science, 270, 1912-1914.
34.
Merton, R. (1973). Sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35.
National Academy of Science. (1995). On being a scientist: Responsible conduct in research (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
36.
Parmley, W. W. (1995, May). Peer review or poor review?Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 25(6), 1470-1471.
37.
Price, D. D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
38.
Price, D. (1967). The scientific estate. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
39.
Rajan, T. V. (1996, April 29). Cause of current funding crisis may lie in de-emphasis of scholarship. The Scientist, 10(9), 10-10.
40.
Rennie, D. (1993, Dec. 15). More peering into editorial peer review. JAMA, 270, 2856-2858.
41.
Rennie, D., & Flanagin, A. (1994, July 13). The second international congress on peer review in biomedical publication (an introduction to 26 papers presented at conference held in Chicago). JAMA, 272, 91-91.
42.
Rennie, D., Knoll, E., & Flanagin, A. (1989, February 3). The international congress on peer review in biomedical publication. JAMA, 261, 749-749.
43.
Riggs, J. E. (1995). Priority, rivalry, and peer review. Journal of Child Neurology, 10(3), 255-255.
44.
Roy, R. (1985, Summer). Funding science: The real defects of peer review and an alternative to it. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 10(3), 73-81.
45.
Roy, R., Messier, R., & Koshland, D. E., Jr. (1993, January 1). Peer review or “performance review”?Science, 259, 13-14.
46.
Salmoiraghi, G. C., & Salmoiraghi, G. C. (1995, January). Let us rejoice, in moderation. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 56, 7-8.
47.
Shapley, D., & Roy, R. (1985). Lost at the frontier: U.S. science and technology policy adrift. Philadelphia: Isi Press.
48.
Sowers, A. E. (1995, October 16). Funding research with NIH grants: A losing battle in a flawed system. The Scientist, 9(20), 12-12.
