Peer Review in the Regulatory Process
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11638117 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Sheila Jasanoff (0000-0002-0488-8698, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1985 |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 20-32 |
| Publication date | 1985-07-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Science Technology & Human Values (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0162-2439 • E-ISSN: 1552-8251 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/016224398501000303 |
| OpenAlex | W2037930858 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 10 |
| References cited | 3 |
For close to four decades, administrative decisionmaking in the United States has been carried out under a presumption of openness. The rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Government in the Sunshine Act, and the procedural requirements of numerous environmental and health and safety statutes all reflect an impressive consensus on one basic principle: That the legitimacy of government depends on exposing the rationale for official decisions to the fullest possible public scrutiny. The presumption of openness has survived fundamental changes in the character of regulatory decisionmaking. Administrative policies, particularly those aimed at controlling technological risks, rest on an increasingly elaborate foundation of scientific and technical information. Regulatory programs generate endless debates about experimental data, theories, and methodologies that are accessible only to highly specialized experts. Yet, even in the most complex and technical areas of risk regulation, the U.S. Congress has shown little inclination to retreat from the paradigm of open public access to the basis for agency decisions. By comparison with decisionmaking in other technologically advanced nations, the U.S. ad
Biology · Computational biology · Peer review · Process (computing · Computer Science · Regulation and Compliance Studies · Biochemistry
The Influence of Disciplinary Origins on Peer Review Normativities in a New Discipline
Contrasting norms on the use of evidence in risk assessment
Wissenschaftssoziologie
Ethisierung und die Marginalisierung der Ethik
Making Expert Bodies
From scandal to reform
Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States
Is there a Nordic model of final disposal of spent nuclear fuel? Governance insights from Finland and Sweden
Building Policy-Related Technical Communities
Whose Shoe Fits Best? Dubious Physics and Power Politics in the TMD Footprint Controversy
| Unique citing works | 10 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,26 |
| Citation span | 1987 - 2025 (39) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 10 |