Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system

1971/01/01 by Harriet Zuckerman, Robert K. Merton, Robert Κ. Merton · 802 citations
Social Sciences · #Higher education #Institutionalisation #International Science and Diplomacy #Political science

paper · doi:10.1007/bf01553188

published in Minerva 9(1), 66-100 (Springer Science+Business Media)

openalex publication_date 1971/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/03

Cited by

• The Past and Present of Peer Review in the Humanities: An Introduction
• Shall we Really do it Again? The Powerful Concept of Replication is Neglected in the Social Sciences
• Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States
• Algorithmic Vigilance: Cross‐Language Plagiarism and the Shift to Decentralized Scientific Gatekeeping
• Peer Review Verfahren auf dem Prüfstand / Peer Review Research – Reviewed
• Error needs culture! Exploring the relationship between error culture and openness
• Assessing expert interdisciplinary work at the frontier: an empirical exploration
• No time for that now! Qualitative changes in manuscript peer review during the Covid-19 pandemic
• Certainly uncertain: how biomedical researchers (e)valuated scientific knowledge about COVID-19 during the pandemic
• Is the panel fair? Evaluating panel compositions through network analysis. The case of research assessments in Italy
• Editorial Work and the Peer Review Economy of STS Journals
• THE ROYAL SOCIETY AND THE PREHISTORY OF PEER REVIEW, 1665–1965
• The Current State of Peer Review
• Could I Write Like Carol Weiss?
• Intermediacy of publications
• Gender representation cues labels of hard and soft sciences
• “Let us salute one of our kind.” How academic obituaries consecrate research biographies
• Scientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific Communication
• Peer‐to‐peer Review and the Future of Scholarly Authority
• Scientific peer review
• From Replication to Redesign: Exploring Pairwise Comparisons for LLM-Based Peer Review
• A Meta-evaluation of Scientific Research Proposals: Different Ways of Comparing Rejected to Awarded Applications
• How do journals of different rank instruct peer reviewers? Reviewer guidelines in the field of management
• Boon, bias or bane? The potential influence of reviewer recommendations on editorial decision-making
• Improving what is published: Toward an evidence-based framework for manuscript review.
• Scientific Utopia
• What is a social pattern? Rethinking a central social science term
• Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system
• A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review
• The state of the art in peer review
• The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era
• Peer review in a post-eprints world: a proposal. [europepmc]
• Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers? [europepmc]
• The miracle of peer review and development in science: an agent-based model. [europepmc]
• A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. [europepmc]
• The changing forms and expectations of peer review. [europepmc]
• The effectiveness of journals as arbiters of scientific impact. [europepmc]
• Intermediacy of publications. [europepmc]
• Innovating editorial practices: academic publishers at work. [europepmc]
• Is open peer review, a growing trend in scholarly publishing, a double-edged sword? [europepmc]
• Progressive and degenerative journals: on the growth and appraisal of knowledge in scholarly publishing. [europepmc]
• How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought. [europepmc]
• Peer review: historical evolution and reviewers' learning. [europepmc]