Skip to content

Research at St Andrews

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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. Online First, 15.07.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Fyfe, A, Squazzoni, F, Torny, D & Dondio, P 2019, 'Managing the growth of peer review at the Royal Society journals, 1865-1965', Science, Technology and Human Values, vol. Online First. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919862868

APA

Fyfe, A., Squazzoni, F., Torny, D., & Dondio, P. (2019). Managing the growth of peer review at the Royal Society journals, 1865-1965. Science, Technology and Human Values, Online First. 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. 2019 Jul 15;Online First. 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. 2019 ; Vol. Online First.

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’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.",
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 = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1177/0162243919862868",
language = "English",
volume = "Online First",
journal = "Science, Technology and Human Values",
issn = "0162-2439",
publisher = "Sage",

}

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 - 2019/7/15

Y1 - 2019/7/15

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 - Online First

JO - Science, Technology and Human Values

JF - Science, Technology and Human Values

SN - 0162-2439

ER -

Related by author

  1. Open Scholarship and the need for collective action

    Neylon, C., Belso, R., Bijsterbosch, M., Cordewener, B., Foncel, J., Fyfe, A., Friesike, S., Jacobs, N., Katerbow, M., Laakso, M. & Sesink, L., 11 Oct 2019, Knowledge Exchange. 100 p.

    Research output: Book/ReportBook

  2. Scientific Publications

    Fyfe, A., 27 Sep 2019, Companion to the History of the Book (2nd edition). Rose, J. & Eliot, S. (eds.). Wiley-Blackwell

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

  3. What the history of copyright in academic publishing tells us about Open Research

    Fyfe, A., 3 Jun 2019

    Research output: Non-textual formWeb publication/site

  4. It's not all about the money: To help learned societies adjust to Plan S, treat them as more than just publishers

    Fyfe, A., 1 May 2019, Research Fortnight, p. 15 1 p.

    Research output: Contribution to specialist publicationArticle

  5. Opening up access to research: a film review of Paywall: the Business of Scholarship, directed and produced by Jason Schmitt, 2018

    Fyfe, A., 18 Apr 2019, Endeavour, In press.

    Research output: Contribution to specialist publicationBook/Film/Article review

ID: 259114733

Top