Research peer review/Bibliography: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Daniel Mietchen
m (+one)
imported>Daniel Mietchen
m (*{{CZ:Ref:Rothwell 2000 Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?}})
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}
*Smith RW. In search of an optimal peer review system. J Participat Med. 2009(Oct);1(1):[http://www.jopm.org/opinion/2009/10/21/in-search-of-an-optimal-peer-review-system/ e13].
*Frishauf P. Reputation systems: a new vision for publishing and peer review. J Participat Med. 2009(Oct);1(1):[http://www.jopm.org/opinion/commentary/2009/10/21/reputation-systems-a-new-vision-for-publishing-and-peer-review/ e13a].
*{{CZ:Ref:Gordon 2009 Cost of the NSERC Science Grant Peer Review System Exceeds the Cost of Giving Every Qualified Researcher a Baseline Grant}}
*{{CZ:Ref:Gordon 2009 Cost of the NSERC Science Grant Peer Review System Exceeds the Cost of Giving Every Qualified Researcher a Baseline Grant}}
*{{citation
*{{citation
Line 12: Line 14:
  | url = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12127284
  | url = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12127284
}}
}}
*{{CZ:Ref:Jefferson 2002 Measuring the quality of editorial peer review}}
*{{CZ:Ref:Rothwell 2000 Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?}}
*{{Citation
*{{Citation
  | title = Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times?
  | title = Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times?
Line 49: Line 53:
  | pmid = 2406470
  | pmid = 2406470
}}
}}
*{{CZ:Ref:Cole 1981 Chance and consensus in peer review}}
*{{CZ:Ref:Ellsberg 1961 Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms}}
*{{CZ:Ref:Ellsberg 1961 Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms}}

Latest revision as of 06:30, 25 August 2010

This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Audio [?]
Video [?]
 
A list of key readings about Research peer review.
Please sort and annotate in a user-friendly manner. For formatting, consider using automated reference wikification.
Suggests, based on a study of the costs of peer review at the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, that innovation could be stimulated by avoiding peer review for grants at the initial stages of research.
Summary: "An experiment in which 150 proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation were evaluated independently by a new set of reviewers indicates that getting a research grant depends to a significant extent on chance. The degree of disagreement within the population of eligible reviewers is such that whether or not a proposal is funded depends in a large proportion of cases upon which reviewers happen to be selected for it. No evidence of systematic bias in the selection of NSF reviewers was found."
Introduces the Ellsberg paradox, a phenomenon studied in decision theory and relevant, for instance, for risk assessment during peer review of research grant proposals.