Sociology of refereeing
DOI: 10.1063/1.4725749
Nearly all scholarly journals use referees to screen submitted manuscripts. Physical scientists recognize the significance of the referee system: Some defend the system, and others attack it. But refereeing itself has not been systematically assessed. By studying the archives of The Physical Review for the years 1948 to 1956 (before the separate publication of Physical Review Letters) we have been able to come to a few conclusions about the workings of the referee system. Although some of the results were expected, others are surprising. Younger physicists, for example, are more likely to have their papers accepted than are older physicists, and the physics “establishment” does not appear to have any bias toward publishing the papers of its own members. The referee system here apparently does what it is supposed to do: Sift out the good papers from the bad.
References
1. S. Cole, J. R. Cole, “Visibility and the Structural Bases of Awareness of Scientific Research,” Am. Sociological Rev. 33, 412 (1968).
2. S. Kennan, F. G. Brickwedde, Journal Literature Covered by Physics Abstracts in 1965, AIP Report 68‐1, New York (1968) Appendix 2;
M. M. Kessler, Technical Information Flow Patterns, Lincoln Laboratories, MIT, Cambridge, Mass, page 247, 249 (1957);
M. M. Kessler, physics today, March 1965, page 30.3. S. Cole, J. R. Cole, “Scientific Output and Recognition: A Study in the Operation of the Reward System in Science,” Am. Sociological Rev. 32, 383 (1967).
4. H. Keniston, Graduate Study and Research in the Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, U. of Pa. Press, Philadelphia (1959).
5. S. A. Goudsmit, physics today, January 1967, page 12.
6. M. Polanyi, Personal Knowledge, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London (1958), chapter 6;
J. M. Ziman, Public Knowledge: The Social Dimension of Science, Cambridge U. P., Cambridge, UK (1966) page 111;
N. Storer, The Social System of Science, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York (1966) page 112;
W. O. Hagstrom, The Scientific Community, Basic Books, New York (1965) page 18.7. S. Raffel, Abstracts of the American Sociological Association (1968).
8. A. G. Prinz, physics today, August 1970, page 11.
9. R. K. Merton “Priorities in Scientific Discovery,” Am. Sociological Rev. 22, 635 (1957).
10. L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Volume 1, Macmillan, London (1900), page 97.
11. M. Polanyi, reference 7, page 163.
12. M. A. Libbey, G. Zaltman, The Role and Distribution of Written Informal Communications in Theoretical High Energy Physics, AIP/SDD‐1, 49 (1967).
13. S. Pasternack, physics today, May 1966, page 40.
More about the Authors
Harriet Zuckerman. Columbia University.
Robert K. Merton. Columbia University.
