A place of peer review in history of scientific press

Author(s) Collection number Pages Download abstract Download full text
Humanenko O. O. № 1 (50) 225-230 Image Image

The article is devoted to studying of peer review process’s sources. The problem of peer review formation in the structure of a modern scholarly communication has been described. It is focused that reviewing is an essential part of scientific discourse. The research of peer review’s historic foundation contributes to the creation of a full picture of its functioning, to the determination of the formed peer reviewing trends and the observation of the main stages of the peer review genre evolution.

Keywords: a peer review, peer reviewing, academic communication.

  • 1. Jefferson T., Wager E. and Davidoff, F. (2002), Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 287, pp. 2786–2790.
  • 2. Wander P. S. The Rhetoric of Science (1976), Western Speech Communication Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 226–235.
  • 3. Weld C. R. (1848), A History of the Royal Society, with Memoirs of the Presidents, Volume the first, London : John W. Parker, West Strand.
  • 4. Portnov A. (2001), About a genre of peer review and a culture of discussion in Ukrainian historiography, Modernity, No. 3, pp. 154–155.
  • 5. Parish L. C. (2008), Peer Review: What Is It All About?, SKINmed : Dermatology for the Clinician,Vol. 7, Issue 1, pp. 6–7.
  • 6. Spier R. (2002), The history of peer review process, Trends in Biotechnology, Vol. 20 (8), pp. 357–358.
  • 7. Kronick D. (1990), Peer review in 18th century scientific journalism, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 263, No. 10, pp. 1321–1322.
  • 8. Siegelman S. S. (1998), The Genesis of Modern Science: Contributions of Scientific Societies and Scientific Journals, Radiology, Vol. 208, pp. 9–16.
  • 9. Zuckerman H. and Merton, R. K. (1991), Patterns of Evaluation in Science: In-stitu­tionalization, Structure and Functions of the Referee System, Minerva, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 66–100.
  • 10. Rethinking Peer review: How the Internet Is Changing Science Journals, (2006), New Atlantis, No. 3, pp. 106–110.
  • 11. Burnham J. C. (1990), The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 263, No. 10, pp. 1323–1329.
  • 12. Weller A. C. (2001), Editorial Peer Review: its Strength and Weaknesses. (ASIST monograph series) Medford NJ : American Society for Information Science and Technology.
  • 13. Cerroni A. (2003), Socio-Cognitive Perverse Effects in Peer Review: Reflections and Proposals, Journal of Science Communication, Vol. 2, Issue 3, pp. 1–12., available at : http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/02/03/F020305.
  • 14. Judson H. F. (1994), Structural Transformations of the Sciences and the End of Peer Review, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 272, pp. 92–94.
  • 15. Garfield E. (1986), Refereeing and Peer Review. Part 1. Opinion and Conjecture of the Effectiveness of Refereeing, Essays of an Information Scientist, Vol. 9, pp. 230–238.