IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Peer Review and the Relevance of Science



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.

Suggested Citation

  • Alister Scott, 2006. "Peer Review and the Relevance of Science," SPRU Working Paper Series 145, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.
  • Handle: RePEc:sru:ssewps:145

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Espey, Molly, 1998. "Gasoline demand revisited: an international meta-analysis of elasticities," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 273-295, June.
    2. Saunders, Harry D., 2000. "A view from the macro side: rebound, backfire, and Khazzoom-Brookes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6-7), pages 439-449, June.
    3. Majone, Giandomenico, 1997. "From the Positive to the Regulatory State: Causes and Consequences of Changes in the Mode of Governance," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(02), pages 139-167, May.
    4. Berndt, Ernst R & Wood, David O, 1979. "Engineering and Econometric Interpretations of Energy-Capital Complementarity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(3), pages 342-354, June.
    5. A. Greening, Lorna & Greene, David L. & Difiglio, Carmen, 2000. "Energy efficiency and consumption -- the rebound effect -- a survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6-7), pages 389-401, June.
    6. Meyer, Bruce D, 1995. "Natural and Quasi-experiments in Economics," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(2), pages 151-161, April.
    7. Brookes, Leonard, 2000. "Energy efficiency fallacies revisited," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6-7), pages 355-366, June.
    8. Schipper, Lee & Grubb, Michael, 2000. "On the rebound? Feedback between energy intensities and energy uses in IEA countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6-7), pages 367-388, June.
    9. Grepperud, Sverre & Rasmussen, Ingeborg, 2004. "A general equilibrium assessment of rebound effects," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 261-282, March.
    10. Willett, Keith D. & Naghshpour, Shahdad, 1987. "Residential demand for energy commodities : A household production function approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 251-256, October.
    11. Kremers, Hans & Nijkamp, Peter & Rietveld, Piet, 1999. "The scope of meta-analysis for transport policy impact analysis in environmental economics," Serie Research Memoranda 0034, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


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

    JEL classification:

    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • I0 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. 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) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.