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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

‘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

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

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)

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

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

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)

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?)

The not-so-brief history Noah Moxham and Aileen Fyfe, ‘The Royal Society and the pre-history of peer review, 1665-1965’, Historical Journal (ePub 2017), https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X17000334 [OA version on St Andrews Research Repository]