Adler, J. E. 1979 . Artists in offices: An Ethnography of an Academic Art Scene. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Bakanic, V., McPhail, C., & Simon, R. J. (1987). The manuscript review and decision-making process. American Sociological Review,
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo Academicus. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
Burt, R. (1992). The social structure of competition. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, and action (pp. 57–91). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Callon, M. (2002). From science as an economic activity to socioeconomic of scientific research: The dynamics of emerged and consolidated techno-economic networks. In P. Mirowski & E.-M. Sent (Eds.), Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science (pp. 277–317). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Campanario, J. M. (1998). Peer review for journals as it stands today—Part 2. Science Communication,
CAUT (Canadian Association of University Teachers). (2009). CAUT almanac of post-secondary education in Canada, 2008–2009. Ottawa, ON: CAUT (Canadian Association of University Teachers).
Collins, R. (1998). The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Commons, J. R. (1931). Institutional economics. American Economic Review,
Concordia University. (1997). Concordia university code of ethics
. Montréal, QC [cited 1 February 2010]. Available from http://web2.concordia.ca/Legal_Counsel/policies/english/BD/BD-4.html
Cooper, R., Gupta, M., Wilkes, M., & Hoffman, J. (2006). Conflict of interest disclosure policies and practices of peer-reviewed biomedical journals. Journal of General Internal Medicine,
Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Derrida, J. (1967). De la grammatologie. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
Etzioni, A. (1971). The need for quality filters in information systems. Science. New series,
Forde-Mazrui, K. (1999). Jural districting: Selecting impartial juries through community representation. Vanderbilt Law Review,
Gilbert, N. G., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gupta, P., Kaur, G., Sharma, B., Shah, D., & Choudhury, P. (2006). What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: Analysis of submissions, review process decision making, and criteria for rejection. Indian Pediatrics,
Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hodgson, C. (1995). Evaluation of cardiovascular grant-in-aid applications by peer review: Influence of internal and external reviewers and committees. Canadian Journal of Cardiology,
Hodgson, C. (1997). How reliable is peer review? An examination of operating grant proposals simultaneously submitted to two similar peer review systems. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,
International Blue Ribbon Panel. (2008). Promoting excellence in research: An assessment of peer-review practices at the social sciences and humanities research council. Report to the Council of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Langfeldt, L. (2001). The decision-making constraints and processes of grant peer-review, and their effects on the review outcome. Social Studies of Science,
Lodge, D. (1985). Small world: An academic romance. London: Penguin Books.
Lotman, Y. (1990). Universe of the mind: A semiotic theory of culture (A. Shukman, Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Lubetsky, M. H., & Krane, J. A. (2009). Appealing outcomes: A study of the overturn rate of Canada’s appellate courts. Osgoode Hall Law Journal,
Mallard, G., Lamont, M., & Guetzkow, J. (2009). Fairness as appropriateness: Negotiating epistemological differences in peer review. Science, Technology and Human Values,
Mayo, N., Brophy, J., Goldberg, M., Klein, M., Miller, S., Platt, R., et al. (2006). Peering at peer review revealed high degree of chance associated with funding of grant applications. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,
Merton, R. K. 1973a . The Matthew effect in science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 439–459). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Merton, R. K. 1973b . Multiple discoveries as strategic research site. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 371–382). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Merton, R. K., & Zuckerman, H. 1973 . Institutionalized patterns of evaluation in science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 460–496). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Miller, R. I. (1972). Evaluating faculty performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
MUN (Memorial University of Newfoundland), (2007). Collective agreement between Memorial University of Newfoundland and Memorial University of Newfoundland Faculty Association, December 13, 2007–August 31, 2009. St. John’s: MUN Printing Services.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Oleinik, A. (2004). On universal versus specific categories of network capitalism: A reply to V. Barnett’s Note. Journal of Economic Issues,
Oleinik, A. (2009). Inquiring into communication in science: Alternative approaches. Science in Context,
Oleinik, A. (2011). Mixing quantitative and qualitative content analysis: Triangulation at work. Quality & Quantity,
Petty, R., Fleming, M., & Fabrigar, L. (1999). The review process at PSPB: Correlates of interreviewer agreement and manuscript acceptance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Polanyi, M. 2002 . The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. In P. Mirowski, & E.-M. Sent (Eds.), Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science (pp. 465–485). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Ramulu, V., Levine, R., Herbert, R., & Wright, S. (2005). Development of a case report review instrument. International Journal of Clinical Practice,
Roth, W.-M. (2002). Editorial power/authorial suffering. Research in Science Education,
Rothwell, P., & Martyn, C. (2000). Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain,
Sandström, U., & Hällsten, M. (2008). Persistent nepotism in peer-review. Scientometric,
Secord, J. A. (2004). Knowledge in transit. Isis,
Shapin, S. (1994). A social history of truth: Civility and science in seventeenth-century England. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Simon, R. J., Bakanic, V., & McPhail, C. (1986). Who complains to journal editors and what happens. Sociological Inquiry,
SSHRC (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada). (2009). Standard research grants program: Manual for adjudication committee members. Ottawa: SSHRC.
Statistics Canada. 2001. 2001 Census of Canada
[electronic database]. Available at http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/english/census01/home/Index.cfm
Statistics Canada. (2002). Criminal prosecutions personnel and expenditures 2000/01. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.
Strathern, M. (2000). The tyranny of transparency. British Educational Research Journal,
Tanovich, D. M., Paciocco, D. M., & Skurka, S. (1997). Jury selection and criminal trials: Skills, science and the law. Concord, ON: Irwin Law.
Thorngate, W., Dawes, R. M., & Foddy, M. (2009). Judging merit. New York: Psychology Press.
Thorngate, W., Faregh, N., & Young, M. (2002). Mining the archives: Analyses of CIHR research grant adjudications. Ottawa, ON: Carleton University.
Weber, M. 1968 . Economy and society: An outline of interpretative sociology. New York: Bedminster Press.