SOLDES
Jusqu'à -70% sur une sélection d'articles*
In Referees We Trust?. How Peer Review Became a Mark of Scientific Legitimacy
Par :Formats :
Disponible dans votre compte client Decitre ou Furet du Nord dès validation de votre commande. Le format ePub protégé est :
- Compatible avec une lecture sur My Vivlio (smartphone, tablette, ordinateur)
- Compatible avec une lecture sur liseuses Vivlio
- Pour les liseuses autres que Vivlio, vous devez utiliser le logiciel Adobe Digital Edition. Non compatible avec la lecture sur les liseuses Kindle, Remarkable et Sony
- Non compatible avec un achat hors France métropolitaine
, qui est-ce ?Notre partenaire de plateforme de lecture numérique où vous retrouverez l'ensemble de vos ebooks gratuitement
Pour en savoir plus sur nos ebooks, consultez notre aide en ligne ici
C'est si simple ! Lisez votre ebook avec l'app Vivlio sur votre tablette, mobile ou ordinateur :
- Nombre de pages256
- Date de parution13/10/2026
- FormatePub
- ISBN978-0-262-05519-2
- EAN9780262055192
- Protection num.Adobe DRM
- Infos supplémentairesepub
- ÉditeurThe MIT Press
Résumé
The origins of the modern peer review system at both scientific journals and funding bodies-and how young peer review as a practice actually is. In Referees We Trust? investigates the origins of the peer review system, a system that is often considered the essential mechanism that protects the trustworthiness of scientific research. Melinda Baldwin traces the first refereeing systems to journals affiliated with scientific societies in the early nineteenth century and follows refereeing as it spread from Britain to the United States.
She finds that the refereeing system was not immediately embraced by all scientific journals; many institutions deliberately eschewed refereeing and were not seen as less reliable because of that choice. The book shows that the modern link between peer review and scientific legitimacy was forged during the Cold War, as legislators and other government stakeholders began to question the need for scientists' advice on how to award federal grant money.
Scientists argued that if grant money was awarded without their expert opinions-in other words, without review by a grant applicant's scientific peers-the US government would be violating a core principle of science itself. That argument was so successful that the idea of "peer review" as a cornerstone of science took hold and spread, elevating peer review from an optional process to a system intended to ensure the quality and trustworthiness of all of science.
She finds that the refereeing system was not immediately embraced by all scientific journals; many institutions deliberately eschewed refereeing and were not seen as less reliable because of that choice. The book shows that the modern link between peer review and scientific legitimacy was forged during the Cold War, as legislators and other government stakeholders began to question the need for scientists' advice on how to award federal grant money.
Scientists argued that if grant money was awarded without their expert opinions-in other words, without review by a grant applicant's scientific peers-the US government would be violating a core principle of science itself. That argument was so successful that the idea of "peer review" as a cornerstone of science took hold and spread, elevating peer review from an optional process to a system intended to ensure the quality and trustworthiness of all of science.