Managing the Growth of Peer Review at the Royal Society Journals, 1865-1965
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11638120 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Aileen Fyfe (0000-0002-6794-4140, University of St Andrews), Flaminio Squazzoni (0000-0002-6503-6077, University of Milan, corresponding author), Didier Torny (0000-0001-6661-9680, CNRS, PSL Research University, CSI—Centre de sociologie de l’innovation, Paris, France), Pierpaolo Dondio (0000-0001-7874-8762, Dublin Institute of Technology) |
| Year | 2019 |
| Volume | 45 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 405-429 |
| Publication date | 2019-07-15 |
| 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 | 10.1177/0162243919862868 |
| OpenAlex | W2961445277 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 7 |
| References cited | 55 |
This article examines the evolution of peer review and the modern editorial processes of scholarly journals by analyzing a novel data set derived from the Royal Society’s archives and covering 1865-1965, that is, the historical period in which refereeing (not yet known as peer review) became firmly established. Our analysis reveals how the Royal Society’s editorial processes coped with both an increasing reliance on refereeing and a growth in submissions, while maintaining collective responsibility and minimizing research waste. By engaging more of its fellows in editorial activity, the society was able to establish an equilibrium of number of submissions per reviewer that was relatively stable over time. Nevertheless, our analysis shows that the distribution of editorial work was significantly uneven. Our findings reveal interesting parallels with current concerns about the scale and distribution of peer review work and suggest the strategic importance of the management of the editorial process to achieve a creative mix of community commitment and professional responsibility that is essential in contemporary journals
Economics · Geography · Media studies · Parallels · Peer review · Period (music · Political science · Public relations · Scale (ratio · Sociology · Work (physics · Engineering · Law · scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Peer Review and Natural-Like Social Relations of Production in Academia
Scholarly Publishing, Boundary Processes, and the Problem of Fake Peer Reviews
Judging Importance before Checking Correctness
A Sociology of Slow Academia
The oracles of science
Publikations- und Evaluationspraktiken in wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften, 1930–2020
Inside regular lab meetings
How Professors Think
The Scientific Journal
Academic Research in the 21st Century
Growth rates of modern science
Bias in peer review
Years of Scientific Periodicals
Credibility, peer review, and Nature , 1945–1990
Conservative attitudes to old-established organs
A journal is a club
Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States
Texts as Knowledge Claims
The Age of Scientific Naturalism
Authorising geographical knowledge
From Manuscript Evaluation to Article Valuation
Peer Review and Scholarly Originality
New Light on Old Boys
The Dedisciplining of Peer Review
The Royal Society and the Prehistory of Peer Review, 1665–1965
The postgutenberg galaxy
Variants of Epistemic Capitalism
Patterns of evaluation in science
The Organisation of Science in England
Journals, learned societies and money
Gender in the Journals
Scholarly Consensus and Journal Rejection Rates
Ladies, Gentlemen, and Scientific Publication at the Royal Society, 1945-1990
The Scientific Life
Gatekeepers and the Social Control of Social Research
Revising as Reframing
| Unique citing works | 7 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,4 |
| Citation span | 2021 - 2025 (5) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 7 |