scholarly journals The Evaluation Scale: Exploring Decisions About Societal Impact in Peer Review Panels

Minerva ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gemma E. Derrick ◽  
Gabrielle N. Samuel
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Societal Impact

scholarly journals An Open Science Peer Review Oath

F1000Research ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelena Aleksic ◽  
Adrian Alexa ◽  
Teresa K Attwood ◽  
Neil Chue Hong ◽  
Martin Dahlö ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Societal Impact ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Research Findings

One of the foundations of the scientific method is to be able to reproduce experiments and corroborate the results of research that has been done before. However, with the increasing complexities of new technologies and techniques, coupled with the specialisation of experiments, reproducing research findings has become a growing challenge. Clearly, scientific methods must be conveyed succinctly, and with clarity and rigour, in order for research to be reproducible. Here, we propose steps to help increase the transparency of the scientific method and the reproducibility of research results: specifically, we introduce a peer-review oath and accompanying manifesto. These have been designed to offer guidelines to enable reviewers (with the minimum friction or bias) to follow and apply open science principles, and support the ideas of transparency, reproducibility and ultimately greater societal impact. Introducing the oath and manifesto at the stage of peer review will help to check that the research being published includes everything that other researchers would need to successfully repeat the work. Peer review is the lynchpin of the publishing system: encouraging the community to consciously (and conscientiously) uphold these principles should help to improve published papers, increase confidence in the reproducibility of the work and, ultimately, provide strategic benefits to authors and their institutions.

scholarly journals Exploring the degree of delegated authority for the peer review of societal impact

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 673-682
Author(s):  
G E Derrick ◽  
G S Samuel
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Societal Impact

scholarly journals The Open Science Peer Review Oath

F1000Research ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelena Aleksic ◽  
Adrian Alexa ◽  
Teresa K Attwood ◽  
Neil Chue Hong ◽  
Martin Dahlö ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Knowledge Creation ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Societal Impact ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Citizen Scientist ◽  
Societal Value ◽  
Research Findings

One of the foundations of the scientific method is to be able to reproduce experiments and corroborate the results of research that has been done before. However, with the increasing complexities of new technologies and techniques, coupled with the specialisation of experiments, reproducing research findings has become a growing challenge. Clearly, scientific methods must be conveyed succinctly, and with clarity and rigour, in order for research to be reproducible. Here, we propose steps to help increase the transparency of the scientific method and the reproducibility of research results: specifically, we introduce a peer-review oath and accompanying manifesto. These have been designed to offer guidelines to enable reviewers (with the minimum friction or bias) to follow and apply open science principles, and support the ideas of transparency, reproducibility and ultimately greater societal impact. Introducing the oath and manifesto at the stage of peer review will help to check that the research being published includes everything that other researchers would need to successfully repeat the work. Peer review is the lynchpin of the publishing system: encouraging the community to consciously (and conscientiously) uphold these principles should help to improve published papers, increase confidence in the reproducibility of the work and, ultimately, provide strategic benefits to authors and their institutions. Future incarnations of the various national Research Excellence Frameworks (REFs) will evolve away from simple citations towards measurable societal value and impact. The proposed manifesto aspires to facilitate this goal by making transparency, reproducibility and citizen-scientist engagement (with the knowledge-creation and dissemination processes) the default parameters for performing sound research.

Peer Review, Interdisciplinarity, and Serendipity

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Britt Holbrook
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Interdisciplinary Research ◽  
Research Evaluation ◽  
Societal Impact ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Scholarly Impact

Peer review remains the tool of choice for research evaluation. But can peer review judge interdisciplinary research and societal, as well as scholarly, impact? Or should metrics for scholarly impact and altmetrics for societal impact replace peer review? “Peer Review, Interdisciplinarity and Serendipity” argues that peer review should be redesigned to maximize serendipity, conceived as ‘sagacity regarding opportunity’. Rather than using peer review to promote the pursuit of academic knowledge for its own sake (and then scrambling to adapt it to interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary demands), this alternative suggests using peer review for communication among academics (from whatever discipline) and between academics and other members of society.

Peer review of a dental curriculum: how one school did it

1976 ◽  
Vol 40 (11) ◽  
pp. 761-762
Author(s):  
PK Morse ◽  
TR Dirksen
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Dental Curriculum

An empirical review of gambling expansion and gambling-related harm

2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 295-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debi A. LaPlante ◽  
Heather M. Gray ◽  
Pat M. Williams ◽  
Sarah E. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Expansion Method ◽  
Responsible Gambling ◽  
Review Literature ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Empirical Comparison ◽  
Related Harm

Abstract. Aims: To discuss and review the latest research related to gambling expansion. Method: We completed a literature review and empirical comparison of peer reviewed findings related to gambling expansion and subsequent gambling-related changes among the population. Results: Although gambling expansion is associated with changes in gambling and gambling-related problems, empirical studies suggest that these effects are mixed and the available literature is limited. For example, the peer review literature suggests that most post-expansion gambling outcomes (i. e., 22 of 34 possible expansion outcomes; 64.7 %) indicate no observable change or a decrease in gambling outcomes, and a minority (i. e., 12 of 34 possible expansion outcomes; 35.3 %) indicate an increase in gambling outcomes. Conclusions: Empirical data related to gambling expansion suggests that its effects are more complex than frequently considered; however, evidence-based intervention might help prepare jurisdictions to deal with potential consequences. Jurisdictions can develop and evaluate responsible gambling programs to try to mitigate the impacts of expanded gambling.

A retrospective analysis of peer review at Physiologia Plantarum

1994 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terence M. Murphy ◽  
Jessica M. Utts
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Retrospective Analysis

The impact of peer review on professional practice.

1984 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 406-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milton Theaman
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Professional Practice ◽  
The Impact
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document