Braun Tibor, Schubert András (szerk.): Szakértői bírálat (peer review) a tudományos kutatásban : Válogatott tanulmányok a téma szakirodalmából (A MTAK Informatikai És Tudományelemzési Sorozata 7., 1993)
EUGENE GARFIELD: Refereeing and Peer Review. Part 1. Opinion and Conjecture on the Effectiveness of Refereeing
12 GARFIELD: REFEREEING AND PEER REVIEW, PART 1 its evolution will be affected by social and technological factors such as funding and electronic publishing. But the public discourse of scholarship, both formal and informal, is essential to the very existence of science. In the modern era of big science —and by that I mean both large-scale projects and large numbers of projects, whether small or large —we must find ways to inculcate new research practitioners with the precepts and ideals that "naturally" were taught in the era of little science. We cannot allow squabbling over limited research funds to cloud the fundamental need to preserve the scientific process implied by refereeing. But we must recognize that the very size of the scientific enterprise may make it necessary to modify rigid application of the Ingelfinger rule 4 9 [promulgated by the late Franz J. Ingelf inger, former editor, NEJM , which states that papers submitted to NEJM must "have been neither published nor submitted elsewhere (including news media and controlled-circulation publications)"] or other precepts that may have been reasonable before the electronic revolution. Indeed, the community of science may become even more relevant in the new communications age, and so we have to examine more carefully the consequences for intellectual property rights and methods of adjudicating disputes concerning priority of discovery. If much of this sounds Mertonian in tone it is no accident, since Robert K. Merton is one of the few scholars who has devoted great effort to the definition of the problems involved in research on refereeing. In fact, the work of Zuckerman and Merton will form a significant part of the discussion in Part 2 of this essay. My thanks to Stephen A. Bonaduce and Terri Freedman for their help in the preparation of this essay. REFERENCES 1 . Garfield E. From citation amnesia to bibliographic plagiarism. Essays of an information scientist. Philadelphia: IS1 Press. 1981. Vol. 4. p. 503-7. 2. . More on the ethics of scientific publication: abuses of authorship attribution and citation amnesia undermine the reward system of science. Ibid. . 1983. Vol. 5. p. 621-6. 3 . —. Ghostwriting —the spectrum from ghostwriter to reviewer to editor to coauthor. Current Contents (48):3-ll, 2 December 1985. (Reprinted in: Essays of an information scientist: ghostwriting and other essays. Philadelphia: ISI Press, 1986. Vol. 8. p. 460-8.) 4. . Alternative forms of scientific publishing: keeping up with the evolving system of scientific communication. Op. cit., 1981. Vol. 4. p. 264-8. 5. . How to use citation analysis for faculty evaluations, and when is it relevant? Parts 1 & 2. Ibid.. 1984. Vol. 6. p. 354-72. 6. - The 1984 Nobel Prize in medicine is awarded to Niels K. ferne, César Milstein, and Georges J.F. Köhler for their contributions to immunology. Current Contents (45):3-18, 11 November 1985. (Reprinted in: Essays of an information scientist: ghostwriting and other essays. Philadelphia: ISI Press, 1986. Vol. 8. p. 416-31.) 7. . The 1984 Nobel Prize in physics goes to Carlo Rubbia and Simon van der Meer; R. Bruce Menifield is awarded the chemistry prize. Current Contents (46):3-14, 18 November 1985. (Reprinted in: Essays of an information scientist: ghostwriting and other essays Philadelphia: ISI Press, 1986. Vol. 8. p. 432-43.) 8. — . The 1984 Nobel Prizes in economics and literature are awarded to Sir Richard Stone for pioneering systems of national accounting and to Jaroslav Seifert, the national poet of Czechoslovakia. Current Contents (49):3-l3, 9 December 1985. (Reprinted in: Essays of an information scientist: ghostwriting and other essays. Philadelphia: ISI Press, 1986. Vol. 8. p. 469-79.) 9. . Do Nobel Prize winners write Citation Classics? Current Contents (23):3-8, 9 June 1986. 10. . Publishing referees' names and comments could make a thankless and belated task a timely and rewarding activity. Op. cit., 1977. Vol. I. p. 435-7. 11. , Anonymity in refereeing? Maybe —but anonymity in authorship? No! Ibid., 1977. Vol. 2. p. 438-40.
