Research peer review: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Bruce M. Tindall m (Insignificant change to force appearance in appropriate category lists) |
imported>Robert Badgett No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
'''Research peer review''' is the "evaluation by experts of the quality and pertinence of research or research proposals of other experts in the same field. Peer review is used by editors in deciding which submissions warrant publication, by granting agencies to determine which proposals should be funded, and by academic institutions in tenure decisions."<ref>{{MeSH|Research peer review}}</ref> | '''Research peer review''' is the "evaluation by experts of the quality and pertinence of research or research proposals of other experts in the same field. Peer review is used by editors in deciding which submissions warrant publication, by granting agencies to determine which proposals should be funded, and by academic institutions in tenure decisions."<ref>{{MeSH|Research peer review}}</ref> | ||
The cost of peer review has been estimated at £165 million (US$326 million).<ref name="urlTimes Higher Education - Unpaid peer review is worth £1.9bn">{{cite web |url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=402189&c=1 |title=Unpaid peer review is worth £1.9bn |author= Zoë Corbyn |authorlink= |coauthors= |date=2008 |format= |work= |publisher=Times Higher Education |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= |accessdate=}}</ref> | |||
Recently, blog-based peer-review has been tested, yielding mixed results.<ref name="titleExperimental Use of Blog-Based Peer Review Gives Mixed Results - Chronicle.com">{{cite web |url=http://chronicle.com/free/2008/04/2332n.htm |title=Experimental Use of Blog-Based Peer Review Gives Mixed Results |accessdate=2008-04-15 |author=Young JR |authorlink= |coauthors= |date=2008-04-02 |format= |work= |publisher=The Chronicle of Higher Education |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=}}</ref> | Recently, blog-based peer-review has been tested, yielding mixed results.<ref name="titleExperimental Use of Blog-Based Peer Review Gives Mixed Results - Chronicle.com">{{cite web |url=http://chronicle.com/free/2008/04/2332n.htm |title=Experimental Use of Blog-Based Peer Review Gives Mixed Results |accessdate=2008-04-15 |author=Young JR |authorlink= |coauthors= |date=2008-04-02 |format= |work= |publisher=The Chronicle of Higher Education |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=}}</ref> | ||
Revision as of 10:57, 5 June 2008
Research peer review is the "evaluation by experts of the quality and pertinence of research or research proposals of other experts in the same field. Peer review is used by editors in deciding which submissions warrant publication, by granting agencies to determine which proposals should be funded, and by academic institutions in tenure decisions."[1]
The cost of peer review has been estimated at £165 million (US$326 million).[2]
Recently, blog-based peer-review has been tested, yielding mixed results.[3]
References
- ↑ Anonymous (2024), Research peer review (English). Medical Subject Headings. U.S. National Library of Medicine.
- ↑ Zoë Corbyn (2008). Unpaid peer review is worth £1.9bn. Times Higher Education.
- ↑ Young JR (2008-04-02). Experimental Use of Blog-Based Peer Review Gives Mixed Results. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved on 2008-04-15.