Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
A gatekeeper is an individual or collective actor who is in a position to control access to resources and rewards relevant in
a particular social system. The terms usage in the sociology of science goes back to Robert K. Merton, who denes gatekeeping
as one of the four complementary roles in the role set of scientists and scholars. Gate-keeping activities are relevant in
different arenas of scholarship such as between scientic masters and apprentices, in collective mentoring programs, in
publishing and in research funding.
618
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 9
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.03011-7
619
620
regard. Crane (1972) has built upon Price in her research on the
role of invisible colleges in the diffusion of scientic knowledge
and ideas. By bibliometrics and survey research, she investigated
the social organization of informal collaboration networks
among mathematicians and rural sociologists. In addition, she
provided a dynamic model of scientic growth, both of scientic
communities and their knowledge production. In an earlier
study of comparing 50 journals from two disciplines, sociology
and economics, Crane (1967) has scrutinized factors of the
academic stratication system that highly affect editorial decisions in the selection of journal articles. She has found empirical
evidence that an authors academic afliation, doctoral origin,
and professional age happened to be rather similar to the
distribution of those characteristics among journal editors.
Moreover, she suggested that these effects might be specic for
each discipline. The publishing industry in an American context
has been described by Coser, Kadushin, and Powell (Coser,
1965, 1975; Coser et al., 1982) as by three structural characteristics: its decentralization; its operating in a highly uncertain,
unpredictable market; and its internal organization characterized by a predominance of craft over bureaucracy. According to
the authors, decisions of publishers and editors are based on
multiple factors such as estimations of prospective sales, but also
on the tradition of a particular publishing house, the size of
a rm, editors previous education, career aspirations, and selfimages. Moreover, they indicated that these points of reference
at least partially depend on an editors structural characteristics,
to a less extent they are chosen at will. Since the turnover rate
among editors is rather high, structurally induced uncertainty
and ambiguity of that role are even enforced so that the
complicated network of particularistic relations between authors
and editors runs counter to the universalistic contractual relations between the rm and its authors (Coser, 1975: p. 19). As
Price and others have shown, the scholarly communication
between scientists through scientic papers goes back to the
seventeenth century. However, despite their central role for
scientic communication, social research on journals editorial
boards is still rather scarce. Recently, the role of gatekeepers in
scholarly communication has been measured as interlocking
editorial board membership, taking the number of editorial
board members that two journals share as an indicator for
the journals proximity (Ni et al., 2013). For 58 journals from
the disciplinary eld of Library and Information Science, the
authors could show that about 10% of editorial board members
served on more than one journal. Their ndings demonstrated
a rather high concentration for this variable when compared
with journal proximity in term of producers, scientic papers,
and papers topics (Ni et al., 2013). The approach of editorial
board member coupling can generate interesting insights in
networks of journal clusters within a given eld or research area
and in the structure of editorial gatekeeping as well.
621
Bibliography
Aguirre, A., 2000. Academic storytelling: a critical race theory story of afrmative action.
Sociological Perspectives 43 (2), 319339.
Appelt, E., Jarosch, M. (Eds.), 2000. Combating Racial Discrimination: Afrmative Action
as a Model for Europe. Berg, Oxford and New York.
Bacchi, C.L., 1996. The Politics of Afrmative Action: Women, Equality and Category
Politics. Sage, London.
Ben-David, J., 1971. The Scientists Role in Society: A Comparative Study. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Cole, J.R., Cole, S., 1973. Social Stratication in Science. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Cole, S., 1992. Making Science: Between Nature and Society. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge.
Corra, M., Willer, D., 2002. The gatekeeper. Sociological Theory 20 (2),
180207.
Coser, L.A., 1965. Men of Ideas: A Sociologists View. Free Press, New York.
Coser, L.A., 1975. Publishers as gatekeepers of ideas. Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Sciences 421, 1422.
Coser, L.A., Kadushin, C., Powell, W.W., 1982. Books: The Culture and Commerce of
Publishing. Basic Books, New York.
Crane, D., 1967. The gatekeepers of science: some factors affecting the selection of
articles for scientic journals. The American Sociologist 2, 195201.
Crane, D., 1972. Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientic Communities.
University of Chicago Press, New York and Chicago.
de Solla Price, D., 1963. Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press,
New York.
Hargens, L.L., Hagstrom, W.A., 1967. Sponsored and contest mobility of American
academic scientists. Sociology of Education 40, 2438.
Harper, S., Reskin, B., 2005. Afrmative action at school and on the job. Annual Review
of Sociology 31, 357379.
HESA Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2012. Staff in Higher Education Institutions
2010/11 in the United Kingdom. www.hesa.ac.uk.
Keith, B., Layne, J., Babchuk, N., Johnson, K., 2002. The context of scientic
achievement: sex status, organizational environments, and the timing of publication
on scholarship outcomes. Social Forces 80 (4), 12531281.
Lamont, M., 2009. How Professors Think. Inside the Curious World of Academic
Judgment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B., Gaudet, H., 1944. The Peoples Choice: How the Voter
Makes up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. Columbia University Press, New York
and London.
Lewin, K., 1943. Forces behind food habits and methods of change. Bulletin of the
National Research Council 108, 3565.
Merton, R.K., 1942. A note on science and democracy. Journal of Legal and Political
Sociology 1, 115126.
Merton, R.K., 5 January 1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science 199 (3810),
5563.
Merton, R.K., 1973. The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Merton, R.K., Riley, M.W. (Eds.), 1980. Sociological Traditions from Generation to
Generation: Glimpses of the American Experience. Ablex Publishing Corporation,
Norwood, NJ.
622
Ni, C., Sugimoto, C.R., Cronin, B., 2013. Visualizing and comparing four facets of
scholarly communication: producers, artifacts, concepts, and gatekeepers. Scientometrics 94, 11611173.
Platt, J., 1996. A History of Sociological Research Methods in America 19201960.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Polanyi, M., 1958. Personal Knowledge. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK.
Turner, R., 1960. Sponsored and contest mobility and the school system. American
Sociological Review 25, 855867.
Whitley, R., Glaser, J., Engwall, L. (Eds.), 2010. Reconguring Knowledge
Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and Their