History of peer review – small bibliography

15/12/2008 at 09:27 2 comments

As I am doing work on peer review, I often encounter authors who do research on peer review but have little knowledge of its history. Thus, I am starting to put together literature on the history of peer review. This is what I have so far. If you have suggestions to add, use the comments.

Barnes, S. B. (1934). The Scientific Journal, 1665-1730. The Scientific Monthly, 38(3), 257-260.

Lock, S. (1985). A difficult balance: Editorial peer review in medicine (p. 172). Philadelphia: iSi Press.

Lux, D. S. (1989). Patronage and royal science in seventeenth-century France: the Académie de physique in Caen. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Porter, J. R. (1964). The Scientific Journal-300th Anniversary. Bacteriological Reviews, 28(3), 215-216.

Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20(8), 357-358. doi: 10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6.

Webster, C. (1967). The Origins of the Royal Society. History of Science, 6, 106-128.

Zilsel, E. (2000). The Sociological Roots of Science. Social Studies of Science, 30(6), 935.

Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9(1), 66-100.

Advertisements

Entry filed under: Peer review, Publishing.

Max Planck journal advertises for chinese strip-club Merkwürdiges an der Uni Basel

2 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Philip Davis  |  06/01/2009 at 17:19

    These three articles are a little more empirically-focused:

    Jefferson, T., Alderson, P., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review. JAMA, 287(21), 2784-2786.

    Jefferson, T., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA, 287(21), 2786-2790.

    van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., & Smith, R. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ, 318(7175), 23-27.

  • 2. mr  |  08/01/2009 at 10:17

    I was trying to assemble literature on the history (!) of peer review. The three articles you are mentioning are on peer review (like hundred others) but have no original content on its history. If you want more of what you call “more empirically-focused” research, check Weller’s book “Editorial Peer Review”. She has probably the most extensive bibliography on the subject.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed



%d bloggers like this: