Martin Reinhart
Dados Biográficos
| ID | 4179262 |
|---|---|
| NOME | Martin Reinhart |
| PRENOMES | Martin |
| SOBRENOME | Reinhart |
| ASSINATURA | REINHART M |
| AFILIAÇÕES | Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-5507-8177 |
| VERIFICADO | Sim |
| TOTAL DE OBRAS | 16 |
| TOTAL DE CITAÇÕES | 13 |
| TOTAL COMO AUTOR | 15 |
| TOTAL COMO EDITOR | 1 |
| PRIMEIRO ANO DE PUBLICAÇÃO | 2012 |
| ANO MAIS RECENTE DE PUBLICAÇÃO | 2026 |
| ÍNDICE H | 2 |
Governing Science through Evaluation
The article presents a theoretical reflection on research evaluation regimes – state-initiatives historically installed in European countries to coordinate the distribution of research funding – and proposes four dimensions enabling their comparison from a global perspective and potentially advancing future research. We take Michael Power’s argument that evaluations are cultural artefacts and essentially linked to modes of governing as a starting…
From scandal to reform
This perspective article explores the historical evolution of scandals related to academic integrity and their implications for the relationship between science and politics. We argue that there are three distinctive waves of scandalization since the postwar era: The first wave, starting in the 1970s, led to governance measures addressing public trust issues in science funding. The 1980s and 1990s witnessed a second wave centered on research misc…
Relating Democratic and Scientific Ethos in Academic Self-Governance
Robert K. Merton envisions science as embedded in a social order and explicitly links the ethos of science and the ethos of democracy. This contribution argues that the Mertonian norms are best seen as a set of procedural norms. Thus, the normative integration of science and society is to be conceived by means of the procedures that form the "in-between" of academia and democratically governed societies. We elaborate how peer review can be unders…
Analyzing sentiments in peer review reports
Using a novel combination of methods and data sets from two national funding agency contexts, this study explores whether review sentiment can be used as a reliable proxy for understanding peer reviewer opinions. We measure reviewer opinions via their review sentiments on both specific review subjects and proposals’ overall funding worthiness with three different methods: manual content analysis and two dictionary-based sentiment analysis algorit…
Assessing the Organizational Climate for Translational Research with a New Survey Tool
Promoting translational research as a means to overcoming chasms in the translation of knowledge through successive fields of research from basic science to public health impacts and back is a central challenge for research managers and policymakers. Organizational leaders need to assess baseline conditions, identify areas needing improvement, and to judge the impact of specific initiatives to sustain or improve translational research practices a…
Science Blogs as Critique — Building Public Identities in the Field of Translational Research
Clinician scientists are pivotal figures in translational research. Although the discourse on translational research is favorable to clinician scientists, their role within it and their view of themselves has received little attention. In this exploratory study, we analyze the view of clinician scientists on translational research by drawing on surveillance studies and the pragmatic sociology of critique and examining the potential for critique o…
The lottery in Babylon—On the role of chance in scientific success
‘The Lottery in Babylon’ is the title of a vivid dystopian short story by Jorge Luis Borges. It envisions a society in which every individual's destiny is determined and changed every 60 days by a
Cycles of invisibility
Sanctions for plagiarism, falsification and fabrication in research are primarily symbolic. This paper investigates sanctions for scientific misconduct and their preceding investigation processes as visible and legitimate symbols. Using three different data sources (retraction notices, expert interviews, and a survey of scientists), we show that sanctions for scientific misconduct operate within a cycle of visibility, in which sanctions are highl…
What are Clinician Scientists Expected to do? The Undefined Space for Professionalizable Work in Translational Biomedicine
Science Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry? Apologies for Scientific Misconduct
Retractions of journal articles exclude fraudulent or erroneous research from legitimate science and perform boundary work. Analyzing retractions from different disciplines and focusing on their apologetic aspects, we find that these apologies shift between openly addressing emotional, normative, and social themes and concealing them in a more scientific style of communication. Their boundary work remains highly ambivalent: They alternate between…
Öffentliche Soziologie als experimentalistische Kollaboration
The visibility of scientific misconduct
Retractions of scientific articles are becoming the most relevant institution for making sense of scientific misconduct. An increasing number of retracted articles, mainly attributed to misconduct, is currently providing a new empirical basis for research about scientific misconduct. This article reviews the relevant research literature from an interdisciplinary context. Furthermore, the results from these studies are contextualized sociologicall…
Rätsel und Paranoia als Methode - Vorschläge zu einer Innovationsforschung der Sozialwissenschaften
Wert, Werte und (Be)Wertungen. Eine erste begriffs- und prozesstheoretische Sondierung der aktuellen Soziologie der Bewertung
Handbuch Wissenschaftssoziologie
Soziologie und Epistemologie des Peer Review
Höchst umstritten, doch offenbar unverzichtbar – Peer Review trifft als zentraler Mechanismus der Selbststeuerung in der Wissenschaft Entscheidungen über Publikationen, Finanzierungen und Karrieren. Seine Konstanz und Funktion verlangt nach soziologischen und philosophischen Erklärungen
Soziologie und Epistemologie des Peer Review
Höchst umstritten, doch offenbar unverzichtbar – Peer Review trifft als zentraler Mechanismus der Selbststeuerung in der Wissenschaft Entscheidungen über Publikationen, Finanzierungen und Karrieren. Seine Konstanz und Funktion verlangt nach soziologischen und philosophischen Erklärungen
What are Clinician Scientists Expected to do? The Undefined Space for Professionalizable Work in Translational Biomedicine
Cycles of invisibility
Sanctions for plagiarism, falsification and fabrication in research are primarily symbolic. This paper investigates sanctions for scientific misconduct and their preceding investigation processes as visible and legitimate symbols. Using three different data sources (retraction notices, expert interviews, and a survey of scientists), we show that sanctions for scientific misconduct operate within a cycle of visibility, in which sanctions are highl…
Handbuch Wissenschaftssoziologie
Soziologie und Epistemologie des Peer Review
Höchst umstritten, doch offenbar unverzichtbar – Peer Review trifft als zentraler Mechanismus der Selbststeuerung in der Wissenschaft Entscheidungen über Publikationen, Finanzierungen und Karrieren. Seine Konstanz und Funktion verlangt nach soziologischen und philosophischen Erklärungen
Rätsel und Paranoia als Methode - Vorschläge zu einer Innovationsforschung der Sozialwissenschaften
Wert, Werte und (Be)Wertungen. Eine erste begriffs- und prozesstheoretische Sondierung der aktuellen Soziologie der Bewertung
The visibility of scientific misconduct
Retractions of scientific articles are becoming the most relevant institution for making sense of scientific misconduct. An increasing number of retracted articles, mainly attributed to misconduct, is currently providing a new empirical basis for research about scientific misconduct. This article reviews the relevant research literature from an interdisciplinary context. Furthermore, the results from these studies are contextualized sociologicall…
Öffentliche Soziologie als experimentalistische Kollaboration
What are Clinician Scientists Expected to do? The Undefined Space for Professionalizable Work in Translational Biomedicine
Science Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry? Apologies for Scientific Misconduct
Retractions of journal articles exclude fraudulent or erroneous research from legitimate science and perform boundary work. Analyzing retractions from different disciplines and focusing on their apologetic aspects, we find that these apologies shift between openly addressing emotional, normative, and social themes and concealing them in a more scientific style of communication. Their boundary work remains highly ambivalent: They alternate between…
Assessing the Organizational Climate for Translational Research with a New Survey Tool
Promoting translational research as a means to overcoming chasms in the translation of knowledge through successive fields of research from basic science to public health impacts and back is a central challenge for research managers and policymakers. Organizational leaders need to assess baseline conditions, identify areas needing improvement, and to judge the impact of specific initiatives to sustain or improve translational research practices a…
Science Blogs as Critique — Building Public Identities in the Field of Translational Research
Clinician scientists are pivotal figures in translational research. Although the discourse on translational research is favorable to clinician scientists, their role within it and their view of themselves has received little attention. In this exploratory study, we analyze the view of clinician scientists on translational research by drawing on surveillance studies and the pragmatic sociology of critique and examining the potential for critique o…
The lottery in Babylon—On the role of chance in scientific success
‘The Lottery in Babylon’ is the title of a vivid dystopian short story by Jorge Luis Borges. It envisions a society in which every individual's destiny is determined and changed every 60 days by a
Cycles of invisibility
Sanctions for plagiarism, falsification and fabrication in research are primarily symbolic. This paper investigates sanctions for scientific misconduct and their preceding investigation processes as visible and legitimate symbols. Using three different data sources (retraction notices, expert interviews, and a survey of scientists), we show that sanctions for scientific misconduct operate within a cycle of visibility, in which sanctions are highl…
Analyzing sentiments in peer review reports
Using a novel combination of methods and data sets from two national funding agency contexts, this study explores whether review sentiment can be used as a reliable proxy for understanding peer reviewer opinions. We measure reviewer opinions via their review sentiments on both specific review subjects and proposals’ overall funding worthiness with three different methods: manual content analysis and two dictionary-based sentiment analysis algorit…
Relating Democratic and Scientific Ethos in Academic Self-Governance
Robert K. Merton envisions science as embedded in a social order and explicitly links the ethos of science and the ethos of democracy. This contribution argues that the Mertonian norms are best seen as a set of procedural norms. Thus, the normative integration of science and society is to be conceived by means of the procedures that form the "in-between" of academia and democratically governed societies. We elaborate how peer review can be unders…
From scandal to reform
This perspective article explores the historical evolution of scandals related to academic integrity and their implications for the relationship between science and politics. We argue that there are three distinctive waves of scandalization since the postwar era: The first wave, starting in the 1970s, led to governance measures addressing public trust issues in science funding. The 1980s and 1990s witnessed a second wave centered on research misc…
Governing Science through Evaluation
The article presents a theoretical reflection on research evaluation regimes – state-initiatives historically installed in European countries to coordinate the distribution of research funding – and proposes four dimensions enabling their comparison from a global perspective and potentially advancing future research. We take Michael Power’s argument that evaluations are cultural artefacts and essentially linked to modes of governing as a starting…
Political science (14 obras) · Philosophy (9 obras) · Sociology (9 obras) · Psychology (6 obras) · Law (5 obras) · Academic integrity and plagiarism (4 obras) · Computer Science (4 obras) · Epistemology (4 obras) · Public relations (4 obras) · Sociology and Education Studies (4 obras)