Early science educators need a gradual introduction to peer review activities. Employs cultural sociology and activity theory to identify patterns of coherence and coexisting contradictions that create tensions to catalyze improvements in science education. (DDR)

Discusses the process and the cultural and social capital garnered through external funding of research projects and publications. Ponders questions on who should be considered a peer for a feminist science educator. (DDR)

Analyzes some experiences with peer review and suggests that the process should be reconceptualized as one that involves an attempt to understand what an author is trying to do and helping authors achieve their goals. (DDR)

Explores the peer review process in electronic and print science education journals and addresses how to submit manuscripts, criteria for reviews, and reviewer qualifications. (DDR)

Suggests that peers have come to be key factors in the configuration of the exercise of science and are endowed with enormous political power. (Contains 25 references.) (DDR)

Analyzes the 'publish or perish' enterprise focusing on the origins of editorial power and knowledge. Explores how tenure, promotion, and salary decisions are important elements that accrue power and knowledge for journal editors. (Contains 26 references.) (DDR)

Explains that the approach to take regarding the peer review issue is to reconsider what is meant by merit in educational research and to train upcoming researchers to expand their ability to judge merit. (Contains 25 references.) (DDR)

Suggests that even if the use of the Internet leads to significant changes in peer review, there is no value-free scientific knowledge and evaluation that are separate from predominant paradigms. (Contains 16 references.) (DDR)

Consists of a metalogue between two authors in which critical issues associated with peer review are identified. Highlights theory and practices that are salient to the continued improvement of science education. (DDR)