Mechanisms for evaluating scientific information and the role of peer review

Philip Abelson

Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1990, vol. 41, issue 3, 216-222

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.

Date: 1990
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199004)41:33.0.CO;2-6

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:jamest:v:41:y:1990:i:3:p:216-222

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1097-4571

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of the American Society for Information Science from Association for Information Science & Technology
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().