CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 179Publishing and Scholarly Communicationscientometrics and bibliometrics researchResearch, Science, and Academia

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The policy challenges of peer review: managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments

Langfeldt, Liv·2006·Research Evaluation
DOI 10.3152/147154406781776039
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Characteristics and challenges of peer review are elucidated from three different perspectives: a social dynamics perspective defining peer review as an important control mechanism in the research community; an uncertainty perspective focusing on the inherent uncertainty in judging research quality: and an organisational perspective focusing on the effects of different ways of organising peer review. Findings from a broad set of empirical studies are used. Peer review often has some conservative and risk-minimising aspects, which may disfavour interdisciplinary and non-conventional research. When the aim is to actively promote interdisciplinary or other kinds of non-conventional research, the involved peer-review system consequently needs to be adjusted to a more risk-taking mode.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3152/147154406781776039

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 179

Related

Metadata

Authors
Langfeldt, L.
Corresponding author
Langfeldt, Liv
ORCID
Langfeldt, Liv
Venue
Research Evaluation
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2006-04-01
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
31-41
ISSN
  • 0958-2029 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-5449
DOI
10.3152/147154406781776039
OpenAlex
W2078257123
Cited by
179
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 12
FWCI
29.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Research Evaluation (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Research, Science, and Academia
Keywords
peer review, research evaluation policy, peer review bias, conflicts of interest, interdisciplinary research, research quality assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review