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
m (about) |
|||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== Strengths and weaknesses of peer review as a quality control mechanism for scientists, publishers and the public == | == Strengths and weaknesses of peer review as a quality control mechanism for scientists, publishers and the public == | ||
''Use table/ Google spreadsheet?'' | |||
=== Clarification of terminology === | === Clarification of terminology === | ||
*Treat manuscript and proposal reviews separately | *Treat manuscript and proposal reviews separately |
Revision as of 20:25, 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. Feel free to chime in.
Strengths and weaknesses of peer review as a quality control mechanism for scientists, publishers and the public
Use table/ Google spreadsheet?
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