Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34 (1997)
Abstract |
The principles and practices of research peer review are described. While the principles are fundamentally generic and apply to peer review across the full spectrum of performing institutions as well as to manuscript/proposal/program peer review, the focus of this paper is peer review of proposed and ongoing programs in federal agencies. The paper describes desireable characteristics and important intangible factors in successful peer review. Also presented is a heuristic protocol for the conduct of successful peer review research evaluations and impact assessments. Problems with peer review are then outlined, followed by examples of peer review of proposed and existing programs in selected federal agencies. Some peer review variants, such as the Science Court, are described, and then research requirements to improve peer review are discussed.
|
Keywords | peer review research evaluation research impact assessment science court |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1007/s11948-997-0014-6 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
The Neuropsychology of Schizophrenia.J. A. Gray, J. Feldon, J. N. P. Rawlins, D. R. Hemsley & A. D. Smith - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):1-20.
The Reliability of Peer Review for Manuscript and Grant Submissions: A Cross-Disciplinary Investigation.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):119-135.
Funding Science: The Real Defects of Peer Review and An Alternative To It. [REVIEW]Rustum Roy - 1985 - Science, Technology and Human Values 10 (3):73-81.
Manuscript Review in Psychology: Psychometrics, Demand Characteristics, and an Alternative Model.Robert F. Bornstein - 1991 - Journal of Mind and Behavior 12 (4):429-468.
The Predictive Validity of Peer Review: A Neglected Issue.Robert F. Bornstein - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):138-139.
Citations of this work BETA
Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review.Arthur E. Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review.Arthur Stamps Iii - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
Similar books and articles
Peer-to-Peer Review and the Future of Scholarly Authority.Kathleen Fitzpatrick - 2010 - Social Epistemology 24 (3):161-179.
Promoting F.A.I.T.H. In Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review. [REVIEW]Leigh Turner - 2003 - Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
Appendix. Comparing Peer Review and Information Prizes: A Possible Economics Experiment.Robin Hanson - 1995 - Social Epistemology 9 (1):49-55.
Peer-Review and Patents: Why the Goose That Lays the Golden Egg is a Red Herring.Sivaramjani Thambisetty & Kartik Kumaramangalam - unknown
Referees, Editors, and Publication Practices: Improving the Reliability and Usefulness of the Peer Review System.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):51-62.
Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study.David B. Resnik, Christina Gutierrez-Ford & Shyamal Peddada - 2008 - Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (3):305-310.
Ethical Issues in Journal Peer-Review.J. Angelo Corlett - 2005 - Journal of Academic Ethics 2 (4):355-366.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2009-01-28
Total views
67 ( #173,091 of 2,520,411 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #405,718 of 2,520,411 )
2009-01-28
Total views
67 ( #173,091 of 2,520,411 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #405,718 of 2,520,411 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads