The Dedisciplining of Peer Review |
| |
| Authors: | Robert Frodeman Adam Briggle |
| |
| Institution: | (1) Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity, University of North Texas, 225 EESAT, Box 310920, Denton, TX 76203-0920, USA;(2) Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle, #310920, Denton, TX 76203-5017, USA |
| |
| 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ |
|
