User:Daniel Mietchen/Notebook/Open Science/2011/03/02/2011 inquiry into peer review by the UK Parliament's Science and Technology Committee: Difference between revisions

From OpenWetWare
< User:Daniel Mietchen‎ | Notebook‎ | Open Science‎ | 2011‎ | 03‎ | 02
Jump to navigationJump to search
(moved here from parent page)
(No difference)

Revision as of 20:21, 1 March 2011

The UK Parliament's Science and Technology Committee are currently running an inquiry into peer review (for both grants and manuscripts). Comments are invited from scientists whose material has been peer reviewed, those who commission peer reviews and those who carry out peer review. Deadline: March 10. Below are some of my notes on the matter.

Strengths and weaknesses of peer review as a quality control mechanism for scientists, publishers and the public

Clarification of terminology

  • Treat manuscript and proposal reviews separately
  • Distinguish between pre-publication and post-publication (for manuscripts) as well as pre-funding and post-funding for grants

Measures to strengthen peer review

Value and use of peer reviewed science on advancing and testing scientific knowledge

Value and use of peer reviewed science in informing public debate

Extent to which peer review varies between scientific disciplines and between countries across the world

Processes by which reviewers with the requisite skills and knowledge are identified, in particular as the volume of multi-disciplinary research increases

Impact of IT and greater use of online resources on the peer review process

Possible alternatives to peer review

Further notes

Retrieved from "https://openwetware.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=User:Daniel_Mietchen/Notebook/Open_Science/2011/03/02/2011_inquiry_into_peer_review_by_the_UK_Parliament%27s_Science_and_Technology_Committee&oldid=496374"