National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 3 Strengthening the System
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2004. Strengthening Peer Review in Federal Agencies That Support Education Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11042.
×

References

Andejeski, Y., Bisceglio, I., Dickerson, K., Johnson, J.E., Robinson, S.I., Smith, H.S., Visco, F.M., and Rich, I.M. (2002). Quantitative impact of including consumers in the scientific review of breast cancer research proposals. Journal of Women’s Health & Gender-Based Medicine, 11(4), 379-388.

August, D., and Muraskin, L.D. (1998, October). Strengthening the standards: Recommendations for OERI peer review. Summary Report prepared for the National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.


Chubin, D.E., and Hackett, E.J. (1990). Peerless science: Peer review and U.S. science policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Cicchetti, D. (1991). The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 119-186.

Cicchetti, D. (2003). The peer review of scientific documents: Suggestions for improvements. Précis for paper to be presented at the Workshop on Peer Review of Education Research Grant Applications, National Research Council, Washington, DC, February 25-26. Précis can be found at http://www7.nationalacademies.org/Core/PeerRevNatAcadSci2-26-03.pdf.

Cole, J. (1979). Fair science: Women in the scientific community. New York: The Free Press.

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (1999). Evaluating federal research programs: Research and the Government Performance and Results Act. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.


Eisenhart, M. (2002). The paradox of peer review: Admitting too much or allowing too little. Research in Science Education, 32(2), 241-255.

Erickson, F., and Gutierrez, K. (2002). Culture, rigor, and science in educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 21-24.


Feuer, M., Towne, L., and Shavelson, R.J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4-14.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2004. Strengthening Peer Review in Federal Agencies That Support Education Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11042.
×

Finn, C.E., Jr. (2002). The limits of peer review. Education Week, 21(34), 30, 34.


Guetzkow, J., Lamont, M., and Mallard, G. (2004). What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 190-212.

Guston, D.H. (2000). The expanding role of peer review processes in the United States. Paper presented at the U.S.-European Workshop on Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation, Evangelische Akademie Baden, Bad Herrenalb, Germany, September 11-14.


Hackett, E.J., and Chubin, D.E. (2003). Peer review for the 21st century: Applications for educational research. Paper prepared for the Workshop on Peer Review of Education Research Grant Applications, National Research Council, Washington, DC, February 25-26. Paper can be found at http://www7.nationalacademies.org/core/HacketChubin_peer_review_paper.pdf.

Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Harnad, S. (1998). The invisible hand of peer review. Nature (November 5).

Horrobin, D.F. (2001). Something rotten at the core of science? Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 22(2), 1-22.

Howe, K. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(1), 42-61.

Hutchings, P., and Shulman, L.S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change, 31(5), 11-15.


Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


Kaiser, J. (2003). Can outsiders do better in managing NIH grants? Science, 299, 1837.

Kostoff, R.N. (1994). Assessing research impact: Federal peer review practices. Evaluation Review, 18(1), 31-40.


Lagemann, E.C. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.


McCutchen, C.W. (1997). Peer review: Treacherous servant, disastrous master. Technology Review, 94(7), 28-36, 40.

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement, Third Edition (pp. 13-104). New York: Macmillan Publishing.


National Research Council. (1992). Research and education reform: Roles for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Committee on the Federal Role in Education Research. R.C. Atkinson and G.B. Jackson (Eds.). Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1998). Assessing the need for independent project reviews in the Department of Energy. Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1999). Peer review in environmental technology development programs. Committee on the Department of Energy-Office of Science and Technology’s Peer Review Program, Board on Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research. R.J. Shavelson and L. Towne (Eds.). Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2004. Strengthening Peer Review in Federal Agencies That Support Education Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11042.
×

Natonal Research Council. (2003). Srategic education research partnership. Committee on a Strategic Education Reseearch Partnership. M.S. Donovan, A.K. Wigdor, and C.E. Snow (Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.


President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.


Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Shulman, L.S. (1999). Taking learning seriously. Change, July-August, 11-17.

Sweet, R.W., Jr. (2002). Legislative intent behind scientifically based research imperatives. Unpublished presentation.


U.S. Congress. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public Law 107-110, Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Congress. (2002). Education Sciences Reform Act. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1999). Peer review practices at federal science agencies vary. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2003). Proposed bulletin on peer review and information quality. Federal Register, 68(178), 54023-54029. Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/030915.pdf [6/29/04].

U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2004). Revised information quality bulletin for peer review. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/peer_review041404.pdf [6/29/04].

Woehr, D.J., and Huffcutt, A.I. (1994). Rater training for performance appraisal: A quantitative review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 189-205.


Zedeck, S., and Cascio, W.F. (1982). Performance appraisal decisions as a function of rater training and purpose of the appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 752-758.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2004. Strengthening Peer Review in Federal Agencies That Support Education Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11042.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2004. Strengthening Peer Review in Federal Agencies That Support Education Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11042.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2004. Strengthening Peer Review in Federal Agencies That Support Education Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11042.
×
Page 80
Next: Appendix A: Workshop Agenda »
Strengthening Peer Review in Federal Agencies That Support Education Research Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $39.00 Buy Ebook | $31.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Peer review is a method used to inform decision-making by engaging experts in a critical evaluation of the merits of a product or proposal. It is most commonly known as a mechanism for judging the quality of proposals for research funding, or manuscripts submitted for publication in academic journals. It is at once a tool with which scientific judgment is formalized and decisions about the allocation of scarce public resources are legitimized. Strengthening Peer Review in Federal Agencies That Support Education Research seeks to advance an improved understanding of a scientific approach to addressing education problems and to engage the field of education research in action-oriented dialogue about how to further the accumulation of scientific knowledge. The focus of this report is on peer review as it is applied to the evaluation of proposals for federal funding of education research projects.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!