Distribution of scientific experts as recognized by peer consensus

Peer review plays an important role in maintaining the quality of science. Selection of peers is at the heart of the process by which science advances. Editors and others responsible for selecting a group of peers often rely on their position in a network by which experts in a field are linked to one another by bonds of common interest and recognized expertise. In this paper, we report one aspect of a study aimed at characterizing the structure of this network: the asymmetry of the fraction of experts receiving varying numbers of nominations as experts by peers. The distribution of such nominations is very skew, and we have found that a law of cumulative advantage provides the best theoretical approximation for the distribution of nominations, expecially when the overall pool of data is broken down into well-defined specialties.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43671/1/11192_2005_Article_BF02098005.pd

Qualitative interpretation and sampling validity of peer recognition study

In an examination of limitations to a previous study, it was found that there was no significant difference between respondents and non-respondents with regard to country or eminence of institution. Observations from non-respondents illustrate possible constraints on the interpretation of responses.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/23847/1/0000086.pd

Simulating a nomination procedure

A snowball sampling procedure is simulated by computer. In snowball sampling, a small first-round sample of respondents, in this case editors of journals in several specialities, are asked to name second-round respondents to be contacted for a similar request for a third round, etc. In our survey, respondents were asked to nominate peer scientists for their contributions and expertise in their specialty. We used the simulation to estimate the effect of the number of rounds on the fraction of experts likely to be named, and to investigate the effect of other parameters. We found that it would take many rounds before every expert in a specialty is nominated. The simulation considered the effect of specialty subdivisions and showed how the distribution changes as the sample increases.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/24938/1/0000365.pd

Consensuality of Peer Nominations Among Scientists

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/69069/2/10.1177_107554708200400210.pd

Geographic patterns of choice among peers

Editors of key journals in six specialties were asked to name experts in their specialty from whom they would like to receive manuscripts and whom they would like to use as referees. The people so named were asked for their choice of experts, and similarly for the persons they nominated. The analysis of geographical factors revealed a similarity between nominations and citations. Most of the nominees were from the U.S., followed by the UK and other industrialized and traditionally scientific nations. The U.S. scientists have a higher probability of being nominated than their proportion in the world scientific population might suggest. Nominators in most of the countries had a distinctive preference for nominating their own countrymen, with the exception of the Soviet Union.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/24241/1/0000504.pd

The First Sixty Years of Farm Management Research in Minnesota 1902-1962

Farm Management,