Anonym kritikk: Peer Review satt på prøve av vitenskaps-teori og -forskning

Fröhlich, Gerhard Anonym kritikk: Peer Review satt på prøve av vitenskaps-teori og -forskning. Sosiologisk årbok, 2003, n. 2, pp. 151-179. [Journal article (Paginated)]


Download (147kB) | Preview

English abstract

Criticizm is a definition criterion of science. Politeness dominates in public accessible scientific and scholarly communication. Critique is practised in secret corners – among colleagues who are friends and at the hand-in of manuscripts or grant applications. Peer review and artificially excessive refusal rates serve as prestigious ornaments, but peer review as a standardised examination system does not exist. The heterogenity of the different peer review variations depends on their – always floating with demand and offer – functions. Peer review processes fail under the spotlight of plagiarism, fraud and camouflage. Several plump manipulations were not discovered by evaluators, but by insiders, readers and the media. Various evaluators were involved in fraud affairs themselves. Additionally for multi-functionaries, "cyptamnesia" (unconscious plagiarism) is nearly unavoidable. The numerous negative empirical reports about peer review are based on the following research design: "experimental", reconstructions and replicas, surveys of evaluated appliers, accordance "measurements" of referee decisions combined with the frequency of citations. Suggestions of reform demand transparency, or the enforcement of the double blinded evaluation. I propose the modernization of the oldfashioned practises of editors and referees: systematic support of editor and evaluator competences, especially for working with databases and methods of information science. Several cases of camouflage would have been discovered by consulting full text versions of older articles of the authors. It would have been possible for a long time already to use plagiarism inpection programmes and "related document" functions, but criticizm should be an every day use of the scientist and should not be delegated to others. Openess and pluralism of the scientific fields should remain the ultimate ambition.

Norwegian abstract

Evalueringer av vitenskapelige prestasjoner er for øyeblikket gjenstand for mange politiske debatter, lovforslag og oppsiktsvekkende nyheter. Men selv ikke de øverste beslutningstakere støtter evalueringenes synspunkt og reformforslag med bakgrunn i det fond av modeller og resultater som den teoretiske-empiriske vitenskapsforskning og informasjonsvitenskap har frambrakt; de kommer åpenbart bare med private eller ideologiske meninger. De vitenskapelige rammebetingelsene blir dermed nedvurdert både i den vitenskapelige analysen og i den metavitenskapelige refleksjon. Skal vitenskapene bli drevet på et irrasjonelt grunnlag? Sett fra et vitenskapsteoretisk ståsted har evaluering, i betydning kritikk og vurdering av teorier, metoder og resultater etter "vitenskapsinterne" kriterier, alltid hørt til den vitenskapelige hverdagspraksis. Evaluering hører til grunnlaget for alle vitenskapelige metoder. Men mange vitenskapsmenn har i det siste blitt opprørt over at man forsøker å fastsette evalueringsprinsipper utenfra, prinsipper som ligner på slike som brukes innen markedsforskning eller innen produksjonskontroll. Det det gjelder er mot-evalueringen: Hvem evaluerer evaluereren? Hvem bedømmer bedømmeren? Hvem målermålestokkene? Ved siden av den evaluerende sciento-metrien (stikkord: impact factor; for kritikk se Fröhlich 1999a, 2002c) har i det siste også forskjellige peer-review-metoder blitt gjenstand for kritiske debatter, medieomtale og empiriske undersøkelser.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Informationsvorenthaltung, Wissenschaftsforschung, (qualitative ) Evaluation, Peer Review, Kritik, withholding of information, studies of science, evaluation, peer review, critics, criticism, Fehlverhalten, misconduct, Evaluering, Kritikk, vitenskapsforskning, vitenskapssvindel
Subjects: E. Publishing and legal issues. > EF. Censorship.
Depositing user: Gerhard Fröhlich
Date deposited: 24 Apr 2012
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:22


"SEEK" links will first look for possible matches inside E-LIS and query Google Scholar if no results are found.

Abrmowitz, S. I m.fl. (1975): “Publish or politic: Referee bias in manuscript review” I Journal of Applied Social Psychology 5 (3), 187-200

Ammstrong, J. S. (1997): “Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation” I Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1), 63-84

Baxt, W. G. m. fl. (1998): “Who reviews the Reviewers? Feasibility of using a fiction manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance” I Annals of emergency medicine 32 (3,1), 310-317

Blank, R. M. (1967): “The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence” American Economic Review 8, 1041-1067

Borkenau, P. og Kammer, D. (1988): ”Publizieren oder resignieren? Subjektive berufliche Perspektiven und Bewältigungsstrategien des Mittelbaus der Universität Bielefeld” I Zeitschrift für Soziologie 17 (1), 72-79

Bradley, J. V. (1981): “Pernicious publication practices” I Bulletin of the Psychonomics Society 18 (1), 31-34

Cicchetti, D. V. (1997): “Referees; Editors, and Publication Practices: Improving the Reliability – and Usefulness of the Peer review system” Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1), 51-62

Cole, S. m.fl. (1981): “Chance and Consensus in Peer Review” Science 214,881-886

Eldredge, J. D. (1997): “Identifying peer-reviewed journals in clinical medicine” Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 85 (4); 418-422

Finetti, M. og Himmelrath, A. (1999): Der Sündenfall. Betrug und Fälschung in der deutschen Wissenschaft Stgt. etc.

Fröhlich, G. (1998): ”Optimale Informationsvorenthaltung als Strategem wissenschaftlicher Kommunikation” I Harald H. Zimmermann og Volker Schramm (red.), Knowledge Management

und Kommunikationssysteme. Konstanz, 535-549. Online: <>

Fröhlich, G. (1999a): ”Das Messen des leicht Messbaren. Output-Indikatoren, Impact-Maße: Artefakte der Szientometrie?” I Becker, J. og Goehring, W. (red.): Kommunikation statt Markt. Gesellschaft für Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung Sankt Augustin, GMD Report 61. Online s.a.: <>

Fröhlich, G. (1999b): Von den Tempelwächtern der Wissenschaft. der Standard – Album Wissenschaft (bm:wv; FWF) 23. 10. 1999, W1

Fröhlich, G. (2000): ”Wissenschaftforschung: Die theoretisch-empirische Erforschung der 'Medien und Institutionen des Wissens'” I AG Kuturwissenschaften Graz (red.): Kulturwissenschaften in Österreich. Graz, 28-31

Fröhlich, G. (2001): ”Betrug und Täuschung in den Sozial- und Kulturwissenschaften” I Hug, T. (red.), Wie kommt die Wissenschaft zu ihrem Wissen? Hohengehren og Baltmannsweiler:

bind 4/CD-rom2: Einführung in die Wissenschaftstheorie und Wissenschaftsforschung der Sozial- und Kulturwissenschaften 261-273. Online s.a.: <>

Fröhlich, G. (2002): “Anonyme Krikik. Peer review auf dem Prüfstand der empirisch-theoretischen Wissenschaftsforschung” I Eveline Pipp (2002): Drehscheibe E-Mitteleuropa. Information: Produzenten, Vermittler, Nutzer. Die gemeinsame Zukunft Wien: Phoibos Verlag, 2002, Biblos-Schriften 173, 129-146. Online s.a.: <>.

Fröhlich, G. (2002a): ”Verein.wissenschaft: Entstehung und Funktion wissenschaftlicher Gesellschaften” I Kammerhofer_Aggermann U. (red.): Ehrenamt und Leidenschaft Salzburg, 255-278. Online s.a.: <>.

Fröhlich, G. (2002b): Peer Review: Contra. Forschung und Lehre 9 (2), 313

Fröhlich, G. (2002c): “Einschlagende Neuigkeiten. Der `Impact Factor´ entscheidet über das gewicht von Artikeln und Forscherinnen” Der Standard, Wissenschaft, 9. 4. 2002, online: <>

Glogoff, S. (1988): “Reviewing the Gatekeepers: A Survey of Referees of Library Journals. American Society for Information” I Science Journal 39 (6), 400-407

Harnad, S. (1996) “Implementing Peer Review on the Net: Scientific Quality Control in Scholarly Electronic Journals” I Peek, R. og Newby, G. (red) Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier Cambridge/Mass., 103-118

Herrera, A. J. (1999): “Language bias discredits the peer-review system” I Nature 397 (6719), 467

Jasanoff, S. (1985): “Peer Review In The Regulatory Process. Science” I Technology and Human Values 10, 20-32

Lindsey, D. (1991): “Precision in the Manuscript Review Process Hargens and Herting Revisited” I Scientometrics 22 (2), 313-325

Lowen, R. S. (1977): Creating the Cold War University. The Transformation of Standford Berkley etc.

Meinefeld, W. (1985): “Die Rezeption empirischer Forschungsergebnisse – eine Frage von Treu und Glaube? Resultate einer Analyse von Zeitschriftenartikeln” I Zeitschrift für

Soziologie 14 (4), 297-314

Munthe, C. og Welin, S. (1996): “The Morality of Scientific Opennes” I Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (4), 411-428

Nylenna, M. (1994): “Multiple blinded review of the same two manuscripts: Effects of referee characteristics and publication Language” I JAMA – Journal of the American Medical Association 272 (2), 149-151

Peters, D. P. og Ceci, S. J. (1982): “Peer review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again” Behavioral and Brain Science 5, 187-195

Peters, J. (1996): “The Hundred Years War started today: an exploration of electronic peer review” I Management Decision 34 (1), 54-59

Savage, J. D. (1999): Funding science in America: Congress, universities, and the politics of the academic pork barrel Cambridge etc.

Wenneras, C. og Wold, A. (1997): “Nepotism and sexism in peer-review” I Nature 387. 341-343

Wolins, L. (1962): “Responsibility for Raw Data” I American Psychologist 17, 657-658

Yamazaki, S. (1992): “Production and transfer of information: the increasing volume of information and the referee system” I Pharmaceutical Library Bulletin 37 (3), 187-190

Yamazaki, S. (1995): “Refereeing system of 29 life science journals preferred by Japanese scientists” I Scientometrics 33 (1), 123- 129

Zuckermann, H. (1977): Scientific elite. Nobel Laureates in the United States N. Y. / London


Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item