2Michele Lamont,2005. Peer Evaluation in the Social Sciences and the Humanities Compared The Unites States, United Kingdom, and Frnace[J]. Report prepared for the Social Sciences and Humanities resear Council of Canada, Department of Sociology,, March 24,2005, Harvard University, www. wjh. harvard, edu/-mlamont/SSHRC-peer, pdf, pp. 5.
3Policy Researcg in Engineering, Scince and Technology University of Manchester[J]. Final Report Prepared for Higher Education Funding for England( HEFCE), April 2000, www. unido, org/fileadmin/import/12273_15KeenanAbstraet, pdf, pp. 61-62.
4David H. Guston,The Expanding Role of Peer Review Process in the United States,Public Research, Innovation and Technology Policies in the USA[J]. Bloustein School of Planning & Public Policy,Rutgers,The State University of New Jersey, www. cspo. org/products/papers/peerreview, pdf, pp. 34-35.
5Travis,G. D. L. ,and Harry M. Collins. 1991. New Light on Old Boys:Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Re view System[J]. Science,Technology and Human Values 16(3):322-341.
6Guetzkow,Joshua, Michele Lamont and Gregoire Mallatd. 2004. What is originality in the Social Xciences and Humanities[J]. American Sociological Review 69: 190-212.
8Gibbons, Michel,Camille Limogers. H elga Nowotny, Somon Schwartzman, Peter Scott and Martin Trudow(eds). 1994. The New Production of Knowledge[M]. London:Sage Pubulieations.
9Callon, Michel,Pierre Lascoumes and Yan Barthe, Agir Dans un Monde Incertain, Essai Sur la Democratie Technique[M]. Paris: 2001 Seuil.
