Skip to content

Research at St Andrews

The Royal Society and the prehistory of peer review, 1665-1965

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Author(s)

Noah Moxham, Aileen Fyfe

School/Research organisations

Abstract

Despite being coined only in the early 1970s, ‘peer review’ has become a powerful rhetorical concept in modern academic discourse, tasked with ensuring the reliability and reputation of scholarly research. Its origins have commonly been dated to the foundation of the Philosophical Transactions in 1665, or to early learned societies more generally, with little consideration of the intervening historical development. It is clear from our analysis of the Royal Society’s editorial practices from the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries that the function of refereeing, and the social and intellectual meaning associated with scholarly publication, has historically been quite different from the function and meaning now associated with peer review. Refereeing emerged as part of the social practices associated with arranging the meetings and publications of gentlemanly learned societies in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Such societies had particular needs for processes that, at various times, could create collective editorial responsibility, protect institutional finances, and guard the award of prestige. The mismatch between that context and the world of modern, professional, international science, helps to explain some of the accusations now being levelled against peer review as not being ‘fit for purpose’.
Close

Details

Original languageEnglish
JournalHistorical Journal
VolumeForthcoming
StateAccepted/In press - 6 May 2017

    Research areas

  • Peer Review, Scientific journals, Scientific publishing, Royal Society, Research evaluation

Discover related content
Find related publications, people, projects and more using interactive charts.

View graph of relations

Related by author

  1. Untangling academic publishing: a history of the relationship between commercial interests, academic prestige and the circulation of research

    Fyfe, A., Coate, K., Curry, S., Lawson, S., Moxham, N. & Rostvik, C. M. 25 May 2017 St Andrews: University of St Andrews. 26 p.

    Research output: Book/ReportOther report

  2. Making public ahead of print: meetings and publications at the Royal Society, 1752-1892

    Fyfe, A. K. & Moxham, N. J. 20 Dec 2016 In : Notes and Records of the Royal Society. 70, 4, p. 361-379 19 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  3. Journals and Periodicals

    Fyfe, A. Mar 2016 A Companion to the History of Science. Lightman, B. (ed.). Wiley-Blackwell, p. 387-399 27

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

  4. Our obsession with scientists on bank notes is wearing thin

    Fyfe, A. 12 Feb 2016 The Conversation

    Research output: Contribution to specialist publicationArticle

  5. 350 years of scientific periodicals

    Fyfe, A., Moxham, N. J. & McDougall-Waters, J. 20 Sep 2015 In : Notes and Records of the Royal Society. 69, 3, p. 227-239

    Research output: Contribution to journalEditorial

Related by journal

  1. The freedom of the press in James Mill's political thought

    Grint, K. 13 Sep 2016 In : Historical Journal.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  2. 'Contests of vital importance': by-elections, the Labour Party, and the reshaping of British radicalism, 1924-1929

    Petrie, M. R. 23 May 2016 In : Historical Journal. First View

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  3. Imagining India, decolonising l'Inde française, c. 1947-1954

    Yechury, A. Dec 2015 In : Historical Journal. 58, 4, p. 1141-1165

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  4. Keynes and the British academy

    Winch, D. Sep 2014 In : Historical Journal. 57, 3, p. 751-771 21 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Related by journal

  1. Historical Journal (Journal)

    Murdoch, S. (Reviewer)
    16 Jul 2011

    Activity: Publication peer-review and editorial workPeer review of manuscripts

ID: 245601993