David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34 (1997)
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)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Domenic V. Cicchetti (1991). The Reliability of Peer Review for Manuscript and Grant Submissions: A Cross-Disciplinary Investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):119-135.
Robert F. Bornstein (1991). Manuscript Review in Psychology: Psychometrics, Demand Characteristics, and an Alternative Model. Journal of Mind and Behavior 12 (4):429-468.
Robert F. Bornstein (1991). The Predictive Validity of Peer Review: A Neglected Issue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):138-139.
Citations of this work BETA
Raymond Spier (2002). Peer Review and Innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (1):99-108.
Arthur Stamps Iii (1997). Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
Barry G. Lovegrove & Steven D. Johnson (2008). Assessment of Research Performance in Biology: How Well Do Peer Review and Bibliometry Correlate. BioScience 58 (2):160-164.
Similar books and articles
Kathleen Fitzpatrick (2011). Peer-to-Peer Review and the Future of Scholarly Authority. Social Epistemology 24 (3):161-179.
J. Angelo Corlett (2005). Ethical Issues in Journal Peer-Review. Journal of Academic Ethics 2 (4):355-366.
David B. Resnik, Christina Gutierrez-Ford & Shyamal Peddada (2008). Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study. Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (3):305-310.
Susan Haack (2007). Peer Review and Publication: Lessons for Lawyers. Stetson Law Review 36 (3).
Domenic V. Cicchetti (1997). Referees, Editors, and Publication Practices: Improving the Reliability and Usefulness of the Peer Review System. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):51-62.
Malcolm Atkinson (2001). 'Peer Review' Culture. Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2):193-204.
Sivaramjani Thambisetty & Kartik Kumaramangalam, Peer-Review and Patents: Why the Goose That Lays the Golden Egg is a Red Herring.
Robin Hanson (1995). Appendix. Comparing Peer Review and Information Prizes: A Possible Economics Experiment. Social Epistemology 9 (1):49-55.
Leigh Turner (2003). Promoting F.A.I.T.H. In Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
Arthur E. Stamps (1997). Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):3-10.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads29 ( #106,438 of 1,724,852 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #167,179 of 1,724,852 )
How can I increase my downloads?