IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jamest/v41y1990i3p216-222.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mechanisms for evaluating scientific information and the role of peer review

Author

Listed:
  • Philip Abelson

Abstract

The role of peer review and the mechanisms for evaluating scientific manuscripts are presented from the perspective of 23 years as editor of Science. Reproducibility is important in science and its feasibility varies greatly among the natural, medical, and behavioral sciences. The “publish or perish” syndrome has led to deleterious effects on scientific communication and it is recommended that a more realistic approach be taken to evaluate research productivity. Recent examples of fraud (Darsee and Slutsky) illustrate some weaknesses of the present system and have led to proposals for reform. It is maintained, however, that fraud, as distinguished from unintended error, is not common in science. © 1990 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip Abelson, 1990. "Mechanisms for evaluating scientific information and the role of peer review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 41(3), pages 216-222, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jamest:v:41:y:1990:i:3:p:216-222
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199004)41:33.0.CO;2-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199004)41:33.0.CO;2-6
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199004)41:33.0.CO;2-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lutz Bornmann & Christophe Weymuth & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2010. "A content analysis of referees’ comments: how do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 493-506, May.
    2. Kiri, Bralind & Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2018. "Above a swamp: A theory of high-quality scientific production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 827-839.
    3. Mohan, Vijay, 2019. "On the use of blockchain-based mechanisms to tackle academic misconduct," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    4. Nicola Lacetera & Lorenzo Zirulia, 2011. "The Economics of Scientific Misconduct," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 568-603.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:bla:jamest:v:41:y:1990:i:3:p:216-222. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.