Skip to content

Research at St Andrews

Managing the growth of peer review at the Royal Society journals, 1865-1965

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

Managing the growth of peer review at the Royal Society journals, 1865-1965. / Fyfe, Aileen; Squazzoni, Flaminio; Torny, Didier; Dondio, Pierpaolo.

In: Science, Technology, and Human Values, Vol. 45, No. 3, 01.05.2020, p. 405-429.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Fyfe, A, Squazzoni, F, Torny, D & Dondio, P 2020, 'Managing the growth of peer review at the Royal Society journals, 1865-1965', Science, Technology, and Human Values, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 405-429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919862868

APA

Fyfe, A., Squazzoni, F., Torny, D., & Dondio, P. (2020). Managing the growth of peer review at the Royal Society journals, 1865-1965. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 45(3), 405-429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919862868

Vancouver

Fyfe A, Squazzoni F, Torny D, Dondio P. Managing the growth of peer review at the Royal Society journals, 1865-1965. Science, Technology, and Human Values. 2020 May 1;45(3):405-429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919862868

Author

Fyfe, Aileen ; Squazzoni, Flaminio ; Torny, Didier ; Dondio, Pierpaolo. / Managing the growth of peer review at the Royal Society journals, 1865-1965. In: Science, Technology, and Human Values. 2020 ; Vol. 45, No. 3. pp. 405-429.

Bibtex - Download

@article{1f3112b662bf4465aa96759d0c969907,
title = "Managing the growth of peer review at the Royal Society journals, 1865-1965",
abstract = "This article examines the evolution of peer review and the modern editorial processes of scholarly journals by analyzing a novel dataset derived from the Royal Society{\textquoteright}s archives and covering 1865 to 1965, i.e., the historical period in which refereeing (not yet known as peer review) became firmly established. Our analysis reveals how the Royal Society{\textquoteright}s editorial processes coped with both an increasing reliance on refereeing and a growth in submissions, while maintaining collective responsibility and minimizing research waste. By engaging more of its fellows in editorial activity, the society was able to establish an equilibrium of number of submissions per reviewer that was relatively stable over time. Nevertheless, our analysis shows that the distribution of editorial work was significantly uneven. Our findings reveal interesting parallels with current concerns about the scale and distribution of peer-review work and suggest the strategic importance of the management of the editorial process to achieve a creative mix of community commitment and professional responsibility that is essential in contemporary journals.",
keywords = "Peer review, Scholarly journals, Editorial work, Royal Society, Responsibility",
author = "Aileen Fyfe and Flaminio Squazzoni and Didier Torny and Pierpaolo Dondio",
note = "This collaboration was supported by the COST Action TD1306 “New Frontiers of Peer Review” (PEERE). The historical research for this paper was supported by the UK Arts & Humanities Research Council, grant AH/K001841, “Publishing the Philosophical Transactions, 1665-2015.”",
year = "2020",
month = may,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0162243919862868",
language = "English",
volume = "45",
pages = "405--429",
journal = "Science, Technology, and Human Values",
issn = "0162-2439",
publisher = "Sage",
number = "3",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Managing the growth of peer review at the Royal Society journals, 1865-1965

AU - Fyfe, Aileen

AU - Squazzoni, Flaminio

AU - Torny, Didier

AU - Dondio, Pierpaolo

N1 - This collaboration was supported by the COST Action TD1306 “New Frontiers of Peer Review” (PEERE). The historical research for this paper was supported by the UK Arts & Humanities Research Council, grant AH/K001841, “Publishing the Philosophical Transactions, 1665-2015.”

PY - 2020/5/1

Y1 - 2020/5/1

N2 - This article examines the evolution of peer review and the modern editorial processes of scholarly journals by analyzing a novel dataset derived from the Royal Society’s archives and covering 1865 to 1965, i.e., the historical period in which refereeing (not yet known as peer review) became firmly established. Our analysis reveals how the Royal Society’s editorial processes coped with both an increasing reliance on refereeing and a growth in submissions, while maintaining collective responsibility and minimizing research waste. By engaging more of its fellows in editorial activity, the society was able to establish an equilibrium of number of submissions per reviewer that was relatively stable over time. Nevertheless, our analysis shows that the distribution of editorial work was significantly uneven. Our findings reveal interesting parallels with current concerns about the scale and distribution of peer-review work and suggest the strategic importance of the management of the editorial process to achieve a creative mix of community commitment and professional responsibility that is essential in contemporary journals.

AB - This article examines the evolution of peer review and the modern editorial processes of scholarly journals by analyzing a novel dataset derived from the Royal Society’s archives and covering 1865 to 1965, i.e., the historical period in which refereeing (not yet known as peer review) became firmly established. Our analysis reveals how the Royal Society’s editorial processes coped with both an increasing reliance on refereeing and a growth in submissions, while maintaining collective responsibility and minimizing research waste. By engaging more of its fellows in editorial activity, the society was able to establish an equilibrium of number of submissions per reviewer that was relatively stable over time. Nevertheless, our analysis shows that the distribution of editorial work was significantly uneven. Our findings reveal interesting parallels with current concerns about the scale and distribution of peer-review work and suggest the strategic importance of the management of the editorial process to achieve a creative mix of community commitment and professional responsibility that is essential in contemporary journals.

KW - Peer review

KW - Scholarly journals

KW - Editorial work

KW - Royal Society

KW - Responsibility

U2 - 10.1177/0162243919862868

DO - 10.1177/0162243919862868

M3 - Article

VL - 45

SP - 405

EP - 429

JO - Science, Technology, and Human Values

JF - Science, Technology, and Human Values

SN - 0162-2439

IS - 3

ER -

Related by author

  1. Self-help for learned journals: scientific societies and the commerce of publishing in the 1950s

    Fyfe, A., 18 Mar 2021, (E-pub ahead of print) In: History of Science. Online First, 25 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

  2. The Royal Society and the noncommercial circulation of knowledge

    Fyfe, A., 21 Oct 2020, Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access. Eve, M. P. & Gray, J. (eds.). MIT Press, p. 147-160

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter (peer-reviewed)peer-review

  3. The production, circulation, consumption and ownership of scientific knowledge: historical perspectives

    Fyfe, A., 6 Sep 2020, Glasgow: CREATe (UK Copyright and Creative Economy Centre, University of Glasgow), (CREATe Working Papers).

    Research output: Working paper

  4. Special Issue:Editorship and the Editing of Scientific Journals, 1750–1950

    Fyfe, A. (ed.) & Gielas, A. M. (ed.), Feb 2020, In: Centaurus. 62, 1

    Research output: Contribution to journalSpecial issuepeer-review

  5. Introduction: Editorship and the editing of scientific journals, 1750-1950

    Fyfe, A. & Gielas, A. M., 2020, In: Centaurus. 62, 1, p. 5-20 16 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

ID: 259114733

Top