Recensio inter pares
Recensio inter pares est aestimatio operis uni vel pluribus hominibus mandata, eādem disciplinā doctis ac auctoribus operis recensi (paribus).[1] Talis processus adhibetur ratio artis(en) moderandae, ope peritorum in disciplina(nl) pertinenti. Variae formae recensionum inter pares ita adoptantur ut animi serventur ad excellentiam versi, ut frux operis melior fiat, atque ut maior auctoritas praebeatur operi. Academia eruditis recensionibus inter pares(en) saepe ita nititur ut diiudicet utrum commentatio academica(es) quaedam ēdenda sit necne.[2] Recensiones inter pares dividi possunt secundum genus vel professionem vel disciplinam—e.g., “recensio inter pares medica”. In scholis etiam adoptari possunt instrumentum auxiliumque quo discipuli melius scribere discant.[3]
Henricus Oldenburg(en) (1619–1677) philosophus Germanicus in Britannia diu degens habetur “pater” modernarum recensionum inter pares scientificarum.[4][5][6] Haec ars per secula progressa est donec facta est mos communis. Exempli gratia, anno 1973 ephemeris Nature in consuetudinem eam redegit. Nomen “recensionis inter pares” ab Anglica locutione peer review ducitur, quae ineunte decennio 198 primum usurpata est.[7] Anno 2017 Schola Superiore Scientiarum Oeconomicarum(en) Moscuae recensioni inter pares monumentum dicavit.[8]
Notae
[recensere | fontem recensere]- ↑ Peer review process. National Cancer Institute Dictionary of Cancer Terms.
- ↑ Peer Review and Quality Control in Science. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (). ISBN 9781405165518. doi:10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosp015.pub2.
- ↑ Teachers as co-authors of student writing: How teachers' initiating texts influence response and revision in an online space. Computers and Composition. 52. pp. 107–131. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2019.01.005. ISSN 8755-4615.
- ↑ The Scientific Revolution: Correspondence Networks (videatur retrospectio diei 16 Ianuarii 2009). University of Florida.
- ↑ Oldenburg, Henry (). Epistle Dedicatory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 1. pp. 0. doi:10.1098/rstl.1665.0001.
- ↑ Boas Hall, Maria (). Henry Oldenburg: shaping the Royal Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-851053-6. bibcode:2002heol.book.....B.
- ↑ The History of Peer Review Is More Interesting Than You Think. JSTOR Daily.
- ↑ Schiermeier, Quirinus (). Monument to peer review unveiled in Moscow. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22060. ISSN 1476-4687.
Bibliographia
[recensere | fontem recensere]- Baldwin, Melinda (). Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States. Isis. 109 (3). pp. 538–558. doi:10.1086/700070
- Lee, Carole J.; Sugimoto, Cassidy R.; Zhang, Guo & Cronin, Blaise (). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64 (1). pp. 2–17. doi:10.1002/asi.22784
- Bazi, Toni ( []). Peer Review: Single-blind, Double-blind, or All the Way-blind?. International Urogynecology Journal. 31 (3). pp. 481–483. doi:10.1007/s00192-019-04187-2. PMID 31820012
- Tomkins, Andreas; Zhang, Min & Heavlin, Gulielmus D.; Fiske, Susanna T. red. ( [compositione ]). Reviewer Bias in Single- Versus Double-blind Peer Review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 114 (48). pp. 12708–12713. doi:10.1073/pnas.1707323114. PMID 29138317. PMC 5715744. bibcode:2017PNAS..11412708T
- Martín, Eloisa (). How Double-blind Peer Review Works and What It Takes To Be A Good Referee. Current Sociology. 64 (5). pp. 691–698. doi:10.1177/0011392116656711
- Hames, Irene (). Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Oxoniae: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4051-3159-9
Nexus interni
- Disquisitio scientifica
- Methodologia
- Methodus scientifica
- Periodicum scientificum
- Philosophia scientiae
- Scientia (ratio)
- Technologia
 |