Reviewing Research, Making Proposals and Evaluating Science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ken Peach
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Academic Life ◽  
Funding Agency ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Research Assessment Exercise ◽  
Research Excellence Framework ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Proposal Writing

This chapter focuses on the review process, the process of writing a proposal and the evaluation of science. The usual way that science is funded these days is through a proposal to a funding agency; if it satisfies peer review and there are sufficient resources available, it is then funded. Peer review is at the heart of academic life, and is used to assess research proposals, progress, publications and institutions. Peer review processes are discussed and, in light of this discussion, the art of proposal writing. The particular features of making fellowship proposals and preparing for an institutional review are described. In addition, several of the methods used for evaluating and ranking research and research institutions are reviewed, including the Research Assessment Exercise and the Research Excellence Framework.

Architectural research and its enemies

2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Macmillan
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Architectural Education ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Research Assessment Exercise ◽  
Consultation Process ◽  
Research Excellence Framework ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Architectural Research ◽  
Competitive Allocation ◽  
Support Research

Like the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) that preceded it, the UK government's proposed Research Excellence Framework (REF) is a means of allocating funding in higher education to support research. As with any method for the competitive allocation of funds it creates winners and losers and inevitably generates a lot of emotion among those rewarded or penalised. More specifically, the ‘winners’ tend to approve of the method of allocation and the ‘losers’ denigrate it as biased against their activities and generally unfair. An extraordinary press campaign has been consistently waged against research assessment and its methods by those involved in architectural education, which I will track over a decade and a half. What follows will question whether this campaign demonstrates the sophistication and superior judgment of those who have gone into print, or conversely whether its mixture of misinformation and disinformation reveals not just disenchantment and prejudice, but a naivety and a depth of ignorance about the fundamentals of research that is deeply damaging to the credibility of architecture as a research-based discipline. With the recent consultation process towards a new cycle of research assessment, the REF, getting under way, I aim to draw attention to the risk of repeating past mistakes.

scholarly journals Comment to: Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise

2016 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
pp. 349-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graziella Bertocchi ◽  
Alfonso Gambardella ◽  
Tullio Jappelli ◽  
Carmela Anna Nappi ◽  
Franco Peracchi
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Research Assessment Exercise

scholarly journals Dental research: where are we now?

2011 ◽  
Vol 93 (6) ◽  
pp. 207-207
Author(s):  
Gerry Linden
Keyword(s):  
Research Assessment ◽  
Research Assessment Exercise ◽  
Senior Lecturer ◽  
Research Excellence Framework ◽  
Selective Distribution ◽  
Dental Research ◽  
Distribution Of Resources ◽  
Quality Of Research ◽  
Support Research

When I was appointed as a senior lecturer in periodontology in the mid-1980s academic posts were attractive and sought after, with the promise of involvement in research that would underpin teaching. Within a few years regular reviews of research were introduced through the research assessment exercise (RAE), now rechristened the research excellence framework (REF). The RAE assessed the quality of research in all subjects in all UK universities. The results have informed the selective distribution of resources from government to the universities to support research.

scholarly journals On the pitfalls of peer review

F1000Research ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 1244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilfred van Gunsteren
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Proper Functioning ◽  
Funding Agencies

The review process of academic, scientific research and its basic tenets is considered, thereby distinguishing between (i) reviewing of manuscripts to be published in the scientific literature, (ii) reviewing of research proposals to be financed by funding agencies, (iii) reviewing of educational or research institutions with respect to their proper functioning, and (iv) reviewing of scientists with the aim of appointing or tenuring faculty.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document