How does the scientific community decide what research will be funded and what results will be published?
What constitutes "excellence" in the eyes of the scientific community?
excerpts from: Scholz, C., 1997. Fieldwork: A Geologist's Memoir of the Kalahari. Princeton University Press.
National Science Foundation, Important Notice number 125, Sept 1999, "Merit Review Criteria".
NIH Announces Use of New Explicit Statements of Review Criteria, Columbia OPG Newsletter, v. 20, no. 1, fall 1997
American Geophysical Union monograph Manuscript Review Form.
Goodstein, David, 1995, Peer Review: After the Big Crunch, American Scientist, vol. 83, p. 401-402.
Parker, E. N, 1997, The Martial Art of Scientific Publication, EOS, Sept 16, 1997.
Abate, T., 1995, What's the Verdict on Peer Review? 21st C magazine, issue 1.1.
Wenneras, C. and Wold, A., 1997. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 187: 341-343.
Kastens, K. A., in press, How to identify the "best" resources for the reviewed collection of the Digital Library for Earth System Education, guest editorial for Another Node on the Internet, Computers & Geosciences.
Return to Case Studies.
Return to E&ESJ home page.
Last updated: December 22, 2005, KAK.