1. A Brief History of Peer Review: Who does it, and what is its purpose?
Aileen Fyfe
School of History, University of St Andrews, UK
@aileenfyfe

4. 1. Oldenburg and the Philosophical Transactions, 1665
Henry Oldenburg: an editor-author, who hoped to make money

5. 1665: Oldenburg and the ‘imprimatur’
Who was involved?
President of Royal Society
What did they do?
Check contents for conformity to licensing requirements (treason, blasphemy etc) by examining copy, or talking to editor
Why?
State licensing requirement

6. 1752: taking on the Transactions
For ‘the Honour and Credit of the Society’… Because of ‘the high Degree, in which the Reputation of the Society was concerned, in respect of the papers printed and published in the Transactions’… And the apparent need ‘of Obviating any future Inconveniences from the want of a due Attention to the proper choice of such publications’ 23 January 1751/2
George Parker, Earl of Macclesfield, Council member, soon-to-be-President

7. 1752: Editorial Committee Editorial Committee Who was involved?
Council members of the Royal Society
What did they do?
Read secretary’s abstract of each paper; take collective decision on inclusion (or not) in Transactions; by vote at a meeting
Why?
Protect the reputation of the Society from accusations of triviality

8. Alternative Model: Consensus Report Académie royale des sciences, 1760s
But, system was unsustainable by 1830s
Committee Reports
Who was involved?
Members of the Académie
What did they do?
Examine and test knowledge claims; report jointly in writing
Why?
To judge validity of knowledge claims by non-members of the Académie

9. 1832: Written referee reports
An extension of (occasional) oral reporting
Ensures full scrutiny of papers submitted
… by a subject expert
Offers formative feedback?
George Busk took five pages to recommend publication of TH Huxley’s 1861 paper

10. 1832: Written Referee Reports
Referees’ Reports
Who was involved?
Fellows of Royal Society
What did they do?
Read full text of submitted papers; comment in writing on suitability for publication in Transactions; revisions to author may be suggested
Why?
To protect reputation of Society;
To select which of many papers (from Fellows and non-Fellows) to publish at length, based on assessment of originality and significance;
To offer peer-to-peer advice on improvements?

11. But…
Refereeing originated as part of a wider system of editorial decision-making
Refereeing did not become widespread until the 1960s and 1970s
What about book publishing?

12. ‘Communicator’ (Fellow of RS) Referees (Fellows of RS)
1. Part of a Wider Editorial System
Author
(FRS)
Meeting of the Society
Author (not-FRS)
‘Communicator’ (Fellow of RS)
Secretary / President
Editorial Committee
Referees (Fellows of RS)
Filtering processes Collective responsibility
Transactions
Proceedings

13. 2. Not universally adopted
E.g. commercial, editor-run journals, such as Philosophical Magazine (T&F) and Nature (Macmillan)
So, alternative models?

14. 1925: Strong Editor at Philosophical Magazine
Editor’s Decision
Who was involved?
The editor(s)
What did they do?
Read full text of submitted papers; decide whether to publish
Why?
To select which of many papers to publish, based on likely interest to readers (=paying customers)

15. 1953 Nature Strong Editor + Testimonials
‘I published a few things in Nature when I was a PhD student [in the 1960s] and almost anything could get into it at the time, if it wasn’t actually wrong. Refereeing was pretty erratic and I think they took more notice of where it came from than the content’
Walter Gratzer,
in M. Baldwin, ‘Credibility, peer review and Nature’ (2015)
Nature (1950s)
Who was involved?
Professional editors
Trusted sponsors
What did they do?
Read submitted papers; listen to informal advice from academics; decide whether to publish
Why?
To select papers likely to interest readers (=paying customers)
Sir W.L. Bragg, who endorsed Watson and Crick’s double helix article

16. Refereeing was not seen as essential
National Union of Scientific Workers (1922): Refereeing causes ‘delay, and sometimes injustice’, and because referees were ‘anonymous and irresponsible’
Royal Society: Transactions v Proceedings
Referees since 1832
Often no referees until 1930s

17. 3. Book Refereeing? The salaried publishers’ reader
The salaried part-time adviser (long-term)
(University presses) The university faculty
Book Publishers
Who was involved?
Salaried publishers’ reader? Retained academic consultant? Academic series editor? University syndics/delegates? One-time academic referees?
What did they do?
Evaluate book proposals (and sample chapters); decide whether to commission/contract
Evaluate finished MS; decide whether to publish
Why?
Intellectual quality? Marketability? ‘Fit’ for the press (or series)

18. Possible Criteria
Has more than one person been involved in decision-making?
Was relevant expertise involved?
Was at least one of the people involved independent (from the journal/press/university/series)?
Was the intellectual content evaluated?
What was it evaluated for? (for plausibility, for truth, or for novelty/significance?)
What else was the decision based on? (Readability? Sales potential? Fit? Likely production cost?)

19. The not-so-brief history
Noah Moxham and Aileen Fyfe, ‘The Royal Society and the pre-history of peer review, ’, Historical Journal (ePub 2017), [OA version on St Andrews Research Repository]