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.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 78
Strengthening Peer Review in Federal Agencies that Support Education Research 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.

OCR for page 78
Strengthening Peer Review in Federal Agencies that Support Education Research 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.

OCR for page 78
Strengthening Peer Review in Federal Agencies that Support Education Research 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.