Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Peer Review and the Relevance of Science

Contents:

Author Info

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Recent science-policy debates have emphasised a growing role for science in helping to address some of society's most pressing challenges such as global environmental change, caring for the needs of ageing populations, and competitiveness in a global age. Other 'relevance' pressures include drives for public accountability, pressure for the 'democratisation' of science and demands from industry for usable knowledge. Underlying the question of the social relevance of science is the matter of decision-making and quality control in science, usually via the peer-review process. Peer review plays a central role in many of the key moments in science. It is the main form of decision-making around grant selection, academic publishing and the promotion of individual scientists within universities and research institutions. It also underpins methods used to evaluate scientific institutions. Yet peer review as currently practised can be narrowly scientific, to the exclusion of other pressing quality criteria relating to social relevance. It is often also controlled and practised by scientists to the exclusion of wider groups that might bring valuable perspectives. This article sets out to examine peer review through the lens of social relevance. It challenges peer review as currently practised and makes some suggestions for ways forward.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/documents/sewp_145.pdf
    Our checks indicate that this address may not be valid because: 404 Not Found (http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/documents/sewp_145.pdf [302 Found]--> https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=sewp_145.pdf&site=25). If this is indeed the case, please notify (Russell Eke)
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex in its series SPRU Working Paper Series with number 145.

    as in new window
    Length: 34 pages
    Date of creation: 11 Apr 2006
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:sru:ssewps:145

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Jubilee Building G08, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9SL
    Phone: +44 (0)1273 686758
    Fax: +44 (0)1273 685865
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: science policy; relevance of science; social relevance; peer review; quality control;

    Find related papers by JEL classification:

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sru:ssewps:145. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Russell Eke).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.