How quality is recognized by peer review panels: The case of the humanities

Michèle Lamont*, Joshua Guetzkow

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterpeer-review

14 Scopus citations

Abstract

This paper summarizes key findings of our research on peer review, which challenge the separation between cognitive and non-cognitive aspects of evaluation. Here we highlight some of the key findings from this research and discuss its relevance for understanding academic evaluation in the humanities. We summarize the role of informal rules, the impact of evaluation settings on rules, definitions of originality, and comparisons between the humanities, the social sciences and history. Taken together, the findings summarized here suggest a research agenda for developing a better empirical understanding of the specific characteristics of peer review evaluation in the humanities as compared to other disciplinary clusters.

Original languageAmerican English
Title of host publicationResearch Assessment in the Humanities
Subtitle of host publicationTowards Criteria and Procedures
PublisherSpringer International Publishing
Pages31-41
Number of pages11
ISBN (Electronic)9783319290164
ISBN (Print)9783319290140
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jan 2016

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2016.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'How quality is recognized by peer review panels: The case of the humanities'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this