語系:
繁體中文
English
日文
簡体中文
說明(常見問題)
登入
回首頁
切換:
標籤
|
MARC模式
|
ISBD
Judgments of scientific quality and ...
~
Teplitskiy, Mikhail.
Judgments of scientific quality and their effects on published knowledge and its diffusion.
紀錄類型:
書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
書名/作者:
Judgments of scientific quality and their effects on published knowledge and its diffusion.
作者:
Teplitskiy, Mikhail.
出版者:
Ann Arbor : : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, , 2016
面頁冊數:
172 p.
附註:
Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 77-10(E), Section: A.
Contained By:
Dissertation Abstracts International77-10A(E).
標題:
Sociology.
標題:
Public policy.
ISBN:
9781339874210
摘要、提要註:
Collaborative efforts like modern scientific research depend on methods to evaluate and absorb participants' contributions, and at the research frontier this evaluative step is often accomplished through the peer review of grants and manuscripts. With billions of dollars and space in prestigious journals hinging on the decisions of reviewers, the review system has attracted consistent scrutiny. Many of the thousands of studies scrutinizing peer review focus on the reliability, validity, and fairness of the reviewers' decisions. Largely absent in this debate about peer review's internal practices are the consequences of these practices for the character and diffusion of published knowledge. This dissertation shifts the focus to the consequences of peer review practices through four case studies. The first case investigates the negotiation of revisions authors of quantitative sociological manuscripts undertake during peer review and reveals that substantial changes concern primarily manuscripts' theoretical framing, while the data analyses remain relatively stable. The case argues that the greater relative value placed on data and analysis over frames incentivizes investment into the former over the latter. The second case interrogates the common practice of using post-publication citations to evaluate the validity of review decisions. Analysis of the reviews of manuscripts submitted to the American Sociological Review from 1977 to 1981 and the manuscripts' subsequent citations reveals no relationship. However, reviewers' comments show that reviewers focused on the soundness of the manuscripts' arguments, not their potential impact. The case shows that a review process that results in publications of variable impact is not necessarily a failing of peer review, but rather a consequence of reviewers and citers draw on different dimensions of value. The third case study examines the consequences for quantitative sociology of the common bias for positive findings in peer review. Using hundreds of studies that use the General Social Survey, the published statistical relationships are perturbed by slight changes to the model specifications. Results show that at the time of publication, results are relatively robust to this perturbation. Additionally, the published relationships are estimated using waves of the Survey that appeared after publication. Results indicate that published findings are weakened much more by social change. The last case focuses on the consequences of scientific peer review judgments outside of the sphere of science. By measuring rates at which millions of scientific journals are used as sources in Wikipedia, the largest online encyclopedia, I show that Wikipedia editors preferentially use high impact and the more accessible (open access) journals. The case shows that increased accessibility of the scientific literature improves its diffusion to the lay public and that a status ordering that review practices establish in one sphere, science, may be exported wholesale to a disparate context, Wikipedia.
Judgments of scientific quality and their effects on published knowledge and its diffusion.
Teplitskiy, Mikhail.
Judgments of scientific quality and their effects on published knowledge and its diffusion.
- Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2016 - 172 p.
Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 77-10(E), Section: A.
Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Chicago, 2016.
This item is not available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
Collaborative efforts like modern scientific research depend on methods to evaluate and absorb participants' contributions, and at the research frontier this evaluative step is often accomplished through the peer review of grants and manuscripts. With billions of dollars and space in prestigious journals hinging on the decisions of reviewers, the review system has attracted consistent scrutiny. Many of the thousands of studies scrutinizing peer review focus on the reliability, validity, and fairness of the reviewers' decisions. Largely absent in this debate about peer review's internal practices are the consequences of these practices for the character and diffusion of published knowledge. This dissertation shifts the focus to the consequences of peer review practices through four case studies. The first case investigates the negotiation of revisions authors of quantitative sociological manuscripts undertake during peer review and reveals that substantial changes concern primarily manuscripts' theoretical framing, while the data analyses remain relatively stable. The case argues that the greater relative value placed on data and analysis over frames incentivizes investment into the former over the latter. The second case interrogates the common practice of using post-publication citations to evaluate the validity of review decisions. Analysis of the reviews of manuscripts submitted to the American Sociological Review from 1977 to 1981 and the manuscripts' subsequent citations reveals no relationship. However, reviewers' comments show that reviewers focused on the soundness of the manuscripts' arguments, not their potential impact. The case shows that a review process that results in publications of variable impact is not necessarily a failing of peer review, but rather a consequence of reviewers and citers draw on different dimensions of value. The third case study examines the consequences for quantitative sociology of the common bias for positive findings in peer review. Using hundreds of studies that use the General Social Survey, the published statistical relationships are perturbed by slight changes to the model specifications. Results show that at the time of publication, results are relatively robust to this perturbation. Additionally, the published relationships are estimated using waves of the Survey that appeared after publication. Results indicate that published findings are weakened much more by social change. The last case focuses on the consequences of scientific peer review judgments outside of the sphere of science. By measuring rates at which millions of scientific journals are used as sources in Wikipedia, the largest online encyclopedia, I show that Wikipedia editors preferentially use high impact and the more accessible (open access) journals. The case shows that increased accessibility of the scientific literature improves its diffusion to the lay public and that a status ordering that review practices establish in one sphere, science, may be exported wholesale to a disparate context, Wikipedia.
ISBN: 9781339874210Subjects--Topical Terms:
177595
Sociology.
Judgments of scientific quality and their effects on published knowledge and its diffusion.
LDR
:03996nmm a2200289 4500
001
476228
005
20170614101407.5
008
181208s2016 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020
$a
9781339874210
035
$a
(MiAaPQ)AAI10129530
035
$a
AAI10129530
040
$a
MiAaPQ
$c
MiAaPQ
100
1
$a
Teplitskiy, Mikhail.
$3
686800
245
1 0
$a
Judgments of scientific quality and their effects on published knowledge and its diffusion.
260
1
$a
Ann Arbor :
$b
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses,
$c
2016
300
$a
172 p.
500
$a
Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 77-10(E), Section: A.
500
$a
Adviser: James A. Evans.
502
$a
Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Chicago, 2016.
506
$a
This item is not available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
520
$a
Collaborative efforts like modern scientific research depend on methods to evaluate and absorb participants' contributions, and at the research frontier this evaluative step is often accomplished through the peer review of grants and manuscripts. With billions of dollars and space in prestigious journals hinging on the decisions of reviewers, the review system has attracted consistent scrutiny. Many of the thousands of studies scrutinizing peer review focus on the reliability, validity, and fairness of the reviewers' decisions. Largely absent in this debate about peer review's internal practices are the consequences of these practices for the character and diffusion of published knowledge. This dissertation shifts the focus to the consequences of peer review practices through four case studies. The first case investigates the negotiation of revisions authors of quantitative sociological manuscripts undertake during peer review and reveals that substantial changes concern primarily manuscripts' theoretical framing, while the data analyses remain relatively stable. The case argues that the greater relative value placed on data and analysis over frames incentivizes investment into the former over the latter. The second case interrogates the common practice of using post-publication citations to evaluate the validity of review decisions. Analysis of the reviews of manuscripts submitted to the American Sociological Review from 1977 to 1981 and the manuscripts' subsequent citations reveals no relationship. However, reviewers' comments show that reviewers focused on the soundness of the manuscripts' arguments, not their potential impact. The case shows that a review process that results in publications of variable impact is not necessarily a failing of peer review, but rather a consequence of reviewers and citers draw on different dimensions of value. The third case study examines the consequences for quantitative sociology of the common bias for positive findings in peer review. Using hundreds of studies that use the General Social Survey, the published statistical relationships are perturbed by slight changes to the model specifications. Results show that at the time of publication, results are relatively robust to this perturbation. Additionally, the published relationships are estimated using waves of the Survey that appeared after publication. Results indicate that published findings are weakened much more by social change. The last case focuses on the consequences of scientific peer review judgments outside of the sphere of science. By measuring rates at which millions of scientific journals are used as sources in Wikipedia, the largest online encyclopedia, I show that Wikipedia editors preferentially use high impact and the more accessible (open access) journals. The case shows that increased accessibility of the scientific literature improves its diffusion to the lay public and that a status ordering that review practices establish in one sphere, science, may be exported wholesale to a disparate context, Wikipedia.
590
$a
School code: 0330.
650
4
$a
Sociology.
$3
177595
650
4
$a
Public policy.
$3
571130
690
$a
0626
690
$a
0630
710
2 0
$a
The University of Chicago.
$b
Sociology.
$3
423538
773
0
$t
Dissertation Abstracts International
$g
77-10A(E).
790
$a
0330
791
$a
Ph.D.
792
$a
2016
793
$a
English
筆 0 讀者評論
評論
新增評論
分享你的心得
Export
取書館別
處理中
...
變更密碼
登入