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
Article number863
Pages (from-to)863-889
JournalThe Historical Journal
Volume61
Issue number4
Early online date16 Nov 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2018

    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. Open Scholarship and the need for collective action

    Neylon, C., Belso, R., Bijsterbosch, M., Cordewener, B., Foncel, J., Friesike, S., Fyfe, A., Jacobs, N., Katerbow, M., Laakso, M. & Sesink, L., 11 Oct 2019, Bristol : Knowledge Exchange. 97 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. Managing the growth of peer review at the Royal Society journals, 1865-1965

    Fyfe, A., Squazzoni, F., Torny, D. & Dondio, P., 15 Jul 2019, In : Science, Technology and Human Values. Online First, 25 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  4. 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

  5. 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

Related by journal

  1. Historical Journal (Journal)

    Steve Murdoch (Reviewer)
    16 Jul 2011

    Activity: Publication peer-review and editorial work typesPeer review of manuscripts

Related by journal

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

    Grint, K., Jun 2017, In : The Historical Journal. 60, 2, p. 363-383

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  2. Lord Bolingbroke’s theory of party and opposition

    Skjoensberg, M., Dec 2016, In : The Historical Journal. 59, 4, p. 947-973

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  3. The privy council of James V of Scotland, 1528-1542

    Blakeway, A. L., Mar 2016, In : The Historical Journal. 59, 1, p. 23-44

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

ID: 245601993

Top