Blue skies, impacts, and peer review

J. B. Holbrook, Steven Hrotic
{"title":"Blue skies, impacts, and peer review","authors":"J. B. Holbrook, Steven Hrotic","doi":"10.13130/2282-5398/2914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper describes the results of a survey regarding the incorporation of societal impacts considerations into the peer review of grant proposals submitted to public science funding bodies. The survey investigated perceptions regarding the use of scientific peers to judge not only the intrinsic scientific value of proposed research, but also its instrumental value to society. Members of the scientific community have expressed – some more stridently than others – resistance to the use of such societal impact considerations. We sought to understand why. Results of the survey suggest that such resistance may be due to a lack of desire rather than a lack of confidence where judging impacts is concerned. In other words, it may be less that scientists feel unable to judge broader societal impacts and more that they are unwilling to do so.","PeriodicalId":315540,"journal":{"name":"Roars Trans.","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Roars Trans.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13130/2282-5398/2914","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

This paper describes the results of a survey regarding the incorporation of societal impacts considerations into the peer review of grant proposals submitted to public science funding bodies. The survey investigated perceptions regarding the use of scientific peers to judge not only the intrinsic scientific value of proposed research, but also its instrumental value to society. Members of the scientific community have expressed – some more stridently than others – resistance to the use of such societal impact considerations. We sought to understand why. Results of the survey suggest that such resistance may be due to a lack of desire rather than a lack of confidence where judging impacts is concerned. In other words, it may be less that scientists feel unable to judge broader societal impacts and more that they are unwilling to do so.
蓝天、撞击和同行评议
本文描述了一项关于将社会影响考虑纳入提交给公共科学资助机构的资助提案的同行评审的调查结果。这项调查调查了人们对利用科学同行来判断拟议研究的内在科学价值,以及其对社会的工具价值的看法。科学界的成员已经表达了——有些人比其他人更尖锐——对使用这种社会影响考虑的抵制。我们试图了解其中的原因。调查结果表明,在判断影响方面,这种阻力可能是由于缺乏愿望,而不是缺乏信心。换句话说,与其说科学家感到无法判断更广泛的社会影响,不如说他们不愿意这样做。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信