Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 6, Issue 6, pp 433–443 | Cite as

Quantitative analysis of a visible tip of the peer review iceberg: Book reviews in chemistry

  • A. Schubert
  • S. Zsindely
  • A. Telcs
  • T. Braun
Article

Abstract

Book reviews are practically unique in being public, “visible” manifestations of the peer review process. Two hundred reviews of 39 books on chemical topics were subjected to statistical context analysis. Dominance of attitudes, consensus among reviewers, correlation between the reviewers' evaluations and the subsequent citation rate of the reviewed book were analysed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    T. LINCOLN, The Book Review Business,Nature, 302 (1983) 757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. SARTON. Notes on the Reviewing of Learned Books,Science, 131 (1960) 1182–1187.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. BRY, L. AFFLERBACH, Book Reviewing in the Science of Human Behaviour as a Contribution to Scholarship by the Scientific Community,Mental Health Book Review Index, 6 (1961) i.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. BORCHERS, What We Expect of a Book Review,Quarterly J. Speech, 37 (1951) 81–86.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. P. YOUNG, Scholarly Book Reviewing in America,Libri, 25 (3) (1975) 174–182.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. G. SNIZEK, E. R. FUHRMAN, Some Factors Affecting the Evaluative Content of Book Reviews in Sociology,Amer. Sociologist, 14 (1979) 108–114.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. D. GLENN, On the Misuse of Book Reviews,Contemp. Sociologist, 7 (1978) 254–255.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. I. DALLOS, Book Reviews as Aids to Book Selection,J. Res. Commun. Stud., 2 (1979/1980) 189–192.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. HIRSCH, A. M. KULLEY, R. T. EFRON, The Gatekeeping Process in Scientific Communication; Norms, Practices, and Content of Book Reviews in Professional Journals, Working Paper No. 83, Institute of the Study of Social Change, Purdue University, 1974.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. J. CHAMPION, M. F. MORRIS, A Content Analysis of Book Reviews in the AJS, ASR and Social Forces,Amer. J. Sociology, 78 (1973) 1256–1265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. LANDAUER, Nonlinearity, Multistability and Fluctuations: Reviewing the Reviewers,Amer. J. Physics, 241 (1981) R107-R113.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Index to Book Reviews in the Sciences (IBRS), Volumes January–June and July–December 1981, Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, 1982.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Science Citation Index, Volumes 1981 and 1982, Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia 1982/1983.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. U. YULE, M. G. KENDALL,An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics, 14th Edition, Hafner, New York 1950.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. COHEN, A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales,Educ. Psychol. Measurement 20 (1960) 37–46.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. COHEN, Weighted Kappa' Nominal Scale Agreement with Provision for Scaled Disagreement or Partial Credit,Psychol. Bull., 70 (4) (1968) 213–220.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. H. ORR, J. KASSAB, Peer Group Judgements of Scientific Merit: Editorial Refereeing, Congress of the Intern. Federation for Documentation, Washington D. C., October 15, 1965.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    E. O. SMIGEL, H. L. ROSS, Factors in the Editorial Decision,Amer. Sociologist, 5 (February 1970) 19–21.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. COLE, J. R. COLE, G. A. SIMON, Chance and Consensus in Peer Review,Science, 214 (1981) 881–886.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    H. ZUCKERMAN, R. K. MERTON, Patterns of Evaluation in Science: Institutionalisation, Structure and Functions of the Referee System,Minerva, 9 (1) (1971) 66–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. COLE, L. RBIN, J. R. COLE, Peer Review and the Support of Science,Scientific American, 237 (4) (1977) 34–41.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D. P. PETERS, S. J. CECI, Peer-review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate of Published Articles Submitted Again,Behav. Brain Sciences, 5 (1982) 187–255.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. D. GORDON, The Role of Referees in Scientific Communication, in: J. HARTLEY (Ed.),The Psychology of Written Communication, Kogan-Page, 1980.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Schubert
    • 1
  • S. Zsindely
    • 1
  • A. Telcs
    • 1
  • T. Braun
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department for Informatics and Science AnalysisLibrary of the Hungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Institute of Inorganic and Analytical ChemistryL. Eötvös UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations