Minerva

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 3–19

The Dedisciplining of Peer Review

Authors

    • Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, Center for the Study of InterdisciplinarityUniversity of North Texas
  • Adam Briggle
    • Department of Philosophy and Religion StudiesUniversity of North Texas
Article

DOI: 10.1007/s11024-012-9192-8

Cite this article as:
Frodeman, R. & Briggle, A. Minerva (2012) 50: 3. doi:10.1007/s11024-012-9192-8

Abstract

The demand for greater public accountability is changing the nature of ex ante peer review at public science agencies worldwide. Based on a four year research project, this essay examines these changes through an analysis of the process of grant proposal review at two US public science agencies, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Weaving historical and conceptual narratives with analytical accounts, we describe the ways in which these two agencies struggle with the question of incorporating considerations of societal impact into the process of peer review. We use this comparative analysis to draw two main conclusions. First, evaluation of broader societal impacts is not different in kind from evaluation of intellectual merit. Second, the scientific community may actually bolster its autonomy by taking a broader range of considerations into its peer review processes.

Keywords

Peer review Disciplinarity Societal impacts Scientific autonomy Interdisciplinarity National Science Foundation National Institutes of Health

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012