1. I acknowledge Professor HenryMontgomery, University of Stockholm, for constructive criticism of the study. Also, I want to thank two anonymous referees for valuable comments on the manuscript. An earlier and more extensive version of this paper is to be found inGöteborg Psychological Reports, 21 (1991) No. 3 as one of five papers in a Ph. D. thesis (S. Hemlin,Quality in science. Researchers' conceptions and judgements, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Göteborg, 1991). The study was supported by a grant from the Swedish Board of Universities and Colleges and a grant from the Wilhelm and Martina Lundgren's Science Foundation.
2. In a study byS. Cole, J. R. Cole, G. A. Simon, Chance and consensus in peer review,Science, 214 (1981) 881–885, they touched upon this question when studying judgements of applications to research projects at the National Science Foundation in the U. S. A. The results were discouraging when it comes to the reliability of peer judgements. They draw the conclusion that peers have different views of what good science is or should be.
3. S. Hemlin, H. Montgomery, Scientists' conceptions of scientific quality,Science Studies, 1 (1990) 73–81.
4. See note No. 3..
5. An Attempt to Lay a Foundation for the Study of Society and History;W. Dilthey,1923/1988