View in EDS PDF Full Text

The Dedisciplining of Peer Review

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Dedisciplining of Peer Review
Language: English
Authors: Frodeman, Robert, Briggle, Adam
Source: Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy. Mar 2012 50(1):3-19.
Availability: Springer. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: service-ny@springer.com; Web site: http://www.springerlink.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Physical Description: PDF
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2012
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Peer Evaluation, Comparative Analysis, Accountability, Research Projects, Grants, Program Proposals
DOI: 10.1007/s11024-012-9192-8
ISSN: 0026-4695
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.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 40
Entry Date: 2012
Accession Number: EJ957093
Database: ERIC
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEj1MiMJCR7wxebxSA0PSh0AAAA4TCB3gYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHQMIHNAgEAMIHHBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDQguXR-WkCGU1V3yAIBEICBmbC-_ADUK15hkM8GmDJxRFynLK8Id8UA3NNK7unO264OJrkF0hKLHMQXg0PYYunO-otaIxSVq6peNe0Bp3LN2BbI4rIZP609Azk65O3QR8W36WgxpcrdbScxDPQ5rBiDxSIbsMWOLx7pYDEdAP09bPtwTwQzF_wjy-pr3rx9KPdhw2oXHKW0Rzd99eQYjISWmL5-kAVLQN6wPQ==
Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ957093
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Dedisciplining of Peer Review
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Frodeman%2C+Robert%22">Frodeman, Robert</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Briggle%2C+Adam%22">Briggle, Adam</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Minerva%3A+A+Review+of+Science%2C+Learning+and+Policy%22"><i>Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy</i></searchLink>. Mar 2012 50(1):3-19.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: service-ny@springer.com; Web site: http://www.springerlink.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: PhysDesc
  Label: Physical Description
  Group: PhysDesc
  Data: PDF
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Evaluation%22">Peer Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accountability%22">Accountability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Projects%22">Research Projects</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grants%22">Grants</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Proposals%22">Program Proposals</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11024-012-9192-8
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0026-4695
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: 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.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 40
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ957093
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ957093
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11024-012-9192-8
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 3
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Peer Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accountability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Projects
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grants
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Proposals
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Dedisciplining of Peer Review
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Frodeman, Robert
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Briggle, Adam
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2012
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0026-4695
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 50
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy
              Type: main
ResultId 1