Back to search

How Values and Uncertainty Shape Scientific Advance in Peer Review

DSEID
DSEID-001-2611904
DOI
10.1177/00031224251362254
Journal
American Sociological Review
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2025-10
Status
metadata_only

Abstract

Tens of thousands of scientists contribute to peer review as journal editors and reviewers of the millions of manuscripts submitted every year. How do they decide what is quality work? What values do they apply in evaluating which science merits publication and which does not? How do they respond to dissensus and uncertainty? Who has the greatest influence over the final outcome? This study combines close reading with large language models to analyze 80,000 reviews of 28,000 accepted and rejected manuscripts in engineering and the life sciences. By following reviewers’ value judgments and editorial decisions, we come to a different view of how epistemic cultures are practiced in journal science. Instead of a consensual dialogue revealing salient norms, we find reviewers differently weigh (“commensurate”) their judgments to attribute value to works. Their pluralistic viewpoints elevate uncertainty about the work, and editors respond by aligning with the most negative of reviewers. Surprisingly, we observe engineers and life scientists find the same epistemic criteria are salient, valued, and influential, with novelty and accuracy being primary. These results underscore how contingency and uncertainty are structural features of STEM peer review and essential to its effectiveness and legitimacy.

Metadata is indexed. Open-access discovery has not completed for this record yet.

Publisher or DOI landing page

PDF

No local PDF is available.

GROBID Extracted text; discontinued.

This text is generated from TEI extraction for accessibility, search, and TTS. Formulas, tables, figures, page layout, and references may not perfectly match the original PDF.

No accessible text representation is available. The text extraction service has been discontinued for the time being. If you require this service, for accessibility or any other reason, please submit an issue/request on this page.

Metadata

Title
How Values and Uncertainty Shape Scientific Advance in Peer Review
Delta ID
DSEID-001-2611904
Authors
Daniel Scott Smith, Neha Nayak Kennard, Tianyu Du, Daniel A. McFarland
Abstract source
crossref
Source URL
None
Access
closed_or_uncertain
Licence
unknown
PDF SHA-256
TEI SHA-256
GROBID

Issues

No public issues have been filed for this DOI.

Submit an issue

Record history

WhenEventFieldOldNew
2026-06-18 19:37:53.011249+00:00identifier_assignedDSEIDDSEID-001-2611904