Abstract

Research evaluation is a familiar element of modern science, and peer review is one of the favoured ways of doing it. But peer review has not always been so central to academic reputations; nor has it always functioned as it now does. This lecture will draw upon my team’s research in the archives of the Royal Society of London to explore how evaluation has changed over the last 250 years, to explain the present crisis and to discuss options for the future.

The Royal Society has published scientific journals since 1665. It was one of the first institutions to develop written refereeing processes, which began to be used at the Philosophical Transactions in the 1830s and later at the Proceedings and other journals. The Society’s unrivalled archives shed light onhow decisions were made – and by whom, and why – before and after the introduction of written refereeing.

During the twentieth century, ‘peer-reviewed publications’ acquired a privileged status. The increasing importance assigned to refereeing accompanied professionalisation and increased competition. The growth of science, demographic changes and internationalization have also posed challenges for our ongoing use of an evaluation practice that originally developed in the context of a closed, gentlemanly community. What should the future of peer review look like?