The Dedisciplining of Peer Review
Saved in:
| 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: | |
| 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 |
| 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. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0026-4695 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11024-012-9192-8 |
