Function, reception, and performativity of review literature in science (FuReWiRev)

Start of the project: 2018-Aug-01 - End of the project: 2022-Nov-30

Scientific knowledge is a central resource of contemporary societies, which is reflected in a rising demand for ‘more’ and ‘better’ knowledge. But how is such knowledge produced in the first place? From a sociological perspective, an obvious site for studying the production of scientific knowledge is the publication system with all its particularities, such as the practice of peer reviewing. Consequently, much attention has been given to the roles and effects of the scientific research article and the networks emerging from citations between research articles.

Much less attention has been given to the roles and effects of another publication format: the review article. At first sight, a review article merely summarizes the facts others have already established and thus seems to play only a secondary role in the production of knowledge. On a closer look, however, it becomes apparent that the review article is a forceful device. In selecting articles for review and commenting on their research quality and findings, the review shapes our understanding and judgement of ‘the factual’.

Our project focuses on this often-neglected publication format and studies the roles, receptions, and performativity of scientific review literature. We include the consideration of the specific conditions under which scientific knowledge is produced today, i.e. an increasingly economic orientation and the introduction of metrics assessing research performance and quality of research output. This changing research climate, we assume, will have an effect on the way reviews are used and received. Especially in areas where research output is high, reviews will play a key role in providing guidance and deciding what counts as legitimate knowledge. We investigate how reviews are written and read in different fields and disciplines and which roles they play there.

To answer our research questions, we employ and mix different methods: hermeneutic content analyses, expert interviews, citation network analyses, and text mining. The project has a time frame of three years and is financed by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

Show more Show less
Publications

Ordering the past, envisioning future(s): how review articles in synthetic biology make use of heterogeneous expectations.

Blümel, C. (2023).
Ordering the past, envisioning future(s): how review articles in synthetic biology make use of heterogeneous expectations. Futures (online first). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103302
Abstract

This article deals with expectation dynamics in the field of synthetic biology. The article draws on scholarly review articles as the main material, complemented by expert interviews conducted with scholars from the field. The aim is to explore how expectations change over time and how they are used to justify and move the field. Drawing from conceptual advances of the sociology of expectations, I show how expectations are increasingly linked at different levels (the landscape, sector, and niche level) and how they support and justify the field among different audiences.

Preprints in the German news media before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A comparative mixed-method analysis.

Simons, A., & Schniedermann, A. (2023).
Preprints in the German news media before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A comparative mixed-method analysis. In I. Broer, S. Lemke, A. Mazarakis, I. Peters, & C. Zinke-Wehlmann (Hrsg.), The Science-Media Interface. On the Relation Between Internal and External Science Communication (S. 53-78). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Saur (online first). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110776546-003
Abstract

Mainstream media widely references scientific publications for claims of factuality and authority. But how did science journalism deal with the sudden surge in preprint publications that provided rapid but often uncertain knowledge during the COVID-19 pandemic? While several studies have investigated various aspects of preprint-based science communication, only a few have focused on the public discourse in Germany, albeit with substantial challenges and controversies. In this mixed-method study, we identified the usage of preprints for 1,006 in about 390,000 German news stories, qualitatively analyzed the contexts of these preprints, and developed codes that reflect the epistemic sentiments. We further compared ...

Shaping the Qualities, Values and Standards of Science. How Reporting Guidelines Improve the Transparency of Biomedical Research.

Schniedermann, A. (2022).
Shaping the Qualities, Values and Standards of Science. How Reporting Guidelines Improve the Transparency of Biomedical Research. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. Frontiers, https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.846822 (Abgerufen am: 01.07.2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.846822

Quantitative studies of science in Germany.

Blümel, C., & Gauch, S. (2021).
Quantitative studies of science in Germany. Scientometrics, 126(12) (online first). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04203-7

A comparison of systematic reviews and guideline-based systematic reviews in medical studies.

Schniedermann, A. (2021).
A comparison of systematic reviews and guideline-based systematic reviews in medical studies. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04199-0

The neglected politics behind evidence-based policy: shedding light on instrument constituency dynamics.

Simons, A., & Schniedermann, A. (2021).
The neglected politics behind evidence-based policy: shedding light on instrument constituency dynamics. Policy & Politics (online first). https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16225469993170

What Synthetic Biology Aims At: Review Articles as Sites for Constructing and Narrating an Emerging Field.

Blümel, C. (2021).
What Synthetic Biology Aims At: Review Articles as Sites for Constructing and Narrating an Emerging Field. In K. Kastenhofer & S. Molyneux-Hodgson (Hrsg.), Community and Identity in Contemporary Technosciences (S. 65-84). Cham: Springer Nature (online first).
Abstract

The analysis of scientific communities and collectives are central to STS and the sociology of science. Reviewing practices, that is, practices of ordering, defining or delineating scientific fields can be understood as an often neglected, yet prevailing textual practice of community building, particularly in novel and emerging research fields, such as synthetic biology. In this article, I aim to explore the structure and content of review articles as a dedicated scholarly genre in synthetic biology, focusing on the period between 2002 and 2012.

What Synthetic Biology Aims At: Review Articles as Sites for Constructing and Narrating an Emerging Field.

Blümel, C. (2020).
What Synthetic Biology Aims At: Review Articles as Sites for Constructing and Narrating an Emerging Field. In Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook. [preprint]. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/npfkv

Studying review articles in scientometrics and beyond: a research agenda.

Blümel, C., & Schniedermann, A. (2020).
Studying review articles in scientometrics and beyond: a research agenda. Scientometrics, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03431-7
Presentations

Who writes what? The academic age paterns of review genres in biomedicine.

Schniedermann, A. (2023, September).
Who writes what? The academic age paterns of review genres in biomedicine. Vortrag auf der Konferenz 27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023), Leiden, Netherlands. doi.org/10.55835/6441b6d076bb0bb2c9ff4c15

Review Articles: Functions, Uses and Reception Patterns in the Scholarly Publication System.

Blümel, C. (2023, Juni).
Review Articles: Functions, Uses and Reception Patterns in the Scholarly Publication System. Vortrag auf dem Seminar Sociology of Science, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland.

How can new standards fix biomedical research?

Schniedermann, A. (2023, Mai).
How can new standards fix biomedical research? Poster auf der Tagung Forschungstag 2023, DZHW, Hannover.

Experiences of authors with standards for biomedical publications.

Schniedermann, A. (2023, März).
Experiences of authors with standards for biomedical publications. Vortrag auf der Konferenz STS-hub.de 2023 | "Circulations", Ingmar Lippert et al., Human Technology Center in Aachen.

Reporting Guidelines and their Mission to increase Trust in Biomedicine.

Schniedermann, A. (2021, Oktober).
Reporting Guidelines and their Mission to increase Trust in Biomedicine. Vortrag auf der Konferenz Trust in Science, Research group “Trust in information”, HLRS, Stuttgart (Germany).

The Resolution of Epistemic Crises in Biomedicine: The Stage of Transparency.

Schniedermann, A., & Blümel, C. (2021, Oktober).
The Resolution of Epistemic Crises in Biomedicine: The Stage of Transparency. Vortrag auf der Konferenz 4S Annual Meeting 2021, Society for Social Studies of Science (4S).

Function, Reception and Performativity of Review Literature in Science, in the Context of the Bibliometrics-driven Incentive Structure.

Schniedermann, A. (2020, Juli).
Function, Reception and Performativity of Review Literature in Science, in the Context of the Bibliometrics-driven Incentive Structure. Vortrag auf dem I²SoS-Colloquium Summer Semester 2020, Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies of Science (I²SoS), Bielefeld University, 14.07.2020, Bielefeld .

On top of the hierarchy: evidence practices and practicing evidence of systematic reviews in biomedicine.

Schniedermann, A., & Blümel, C. (2020, Februar).
On top of the hierarchy: evidence practices and practicing evidence of systematic reviews in biomedicine. Vortrag auf der Konferenz Practicing Evidence-Evidence Practices, DFG Forschungsgruppe, 19.2.-21.2.2020, München.

Instrument Constituencies as Nexus Actors - Their Role in Mediating Between Science and Policy Fields.

Simons. A., & Schniedermann, A. (2020, Januar).
Instrument Constituencies as Nexus Actors - Their Role in Mediating Between Science and Policy Fields. Vortrag auf der AG Politische Soziologie, Prof. Dr. Holger Straßheim, 15.01.2020, Bielefeld.

Studying review articles in scientometrics: methods, topics, and future prospects.

Blümel, C., & Schniedermann, A. (2019, September).
Studying review articles in scientometrics: methods, topics, and future prospects. Workshop given at the 17th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, 2nd-5th September 2019, Rome, Italy.

The role of policy instrument constituencies in creating linkages between policy fields.

Simons, A. (2019, Juni).
The role of policy instrument constituencies in creating linkages between policy fields. Vortrag auf der ICPP4 International Conference of Public Policy, panel on “Nexus Problems”, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.

The Valuation of Digital Scholarly Communication: Platforms, Metrics, and Narratives.

Blümel, C. (2019, Februar).
The Valuation of Digital Scholarly Communication: Platforms, Metrics, and Narratives. Invited Talk an der TU München.

Modes of Knowledge Transfer in Synthetic Biology: Between commercialisation and societal legitimation.

Blümel, C. (2019, Januar).
Modes of Knowledge Transfer in Synthetic Biology: Between commercialisation and societal legitimation. Presentation at the Max Planck Synthetic Biology (MaxSynbio) Innovation Workshop, Max-Planck Institut für Intelligente Systeme Stuttgart.

Contact persons

Clemens Blümel
Clemens Blümel +49 30 2064177-31

Funded by

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung