{"title":"Creativity in the review of science.","authors":"C. Lortie","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2013.6.16.E","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Science is fundamentally a creative pursuit. At every step of the process, novel ideas that are useful to the scientific task at hand are employed—the very definit-ion of creativity (Runco and Jaeger 2012). In a recent commentary on novelty and editorial peer review, it was proposed that novelty be abandoned as a criterion assoc-iated with decisions by editors to reject (Arnqvist 2013). I find this a challenging proposition for at least two reasons. Novelty is important. Editors are useful. I high-ly value the creative aspects of what we do. I do not restrict this assessment of novel and useful to the inter-pretation proposed by the authors but apply the search for this criterion to the application, visuals, statistics, and integration of different ideas that in their combin-ation become novel like hybrid vigor. Importantly, creativity research is an extensive and well-established field. Training (Graham et al. 2012, Ha 2006, Scott et al. 2004), environment (Hunter et al. 2009), testing (Ander-son et al. 2004, Kim 2008, Kuncel et al. 2007), and self- versus non-self ratings (Ng and Feldman 2012) provide clear guidelines and opportunities for effectively using creativity in peer review. Ecological editors may be chasing novelty based on intuition, and I recognize that there is variation in editors just as there is in any set of reviews by external referees, but this does not, however, directly implicate the loss of novelty or creativity as an important consideration when reviewing. On the con-trary, perhaps we should embrace it, improve how we evaluate it, formalize it, and place it in its appropriate context.","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2013.6.16.E","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Science is fundamentally a creative pursuit. At every step of the process, novel ideas that are useful to the scientific task at hand are employed—the very definit-ion of creativity (Runco and Jaeger 2012). In a recent commentary on novelty and editorial peer review, it was proposed that novelty be abandoned as a criterion assoc-iated with decisions by editors to reject (Arnqvist 2013). I find this a challenging proposition for at least two reasons. Novelty is important. Editors are useful. I high-ly value the creative aspects of what we do. I do not restrict this assessment of novel and useful to the inter-pretation proposed by the authors but apply the search for this criterion to the application, visuals, statistics, and integration of different ideas that in their combin-ation become novel like hybrid vigor. Importantly, creativity research is an extensive and well-established field. Training (Graham et al. 2012, Ha 2006, Scott et al. 2004), environment (Hunter et al. 2009), testing (Ander-son et al. 2004, Kim 2008, Kuncel et al. 2007), and self- versus non-self ratings (Ng and Feldman 2012) provide clear guidelines and opportunities for effectively using creativity in peer review. Ecological editors may be chasing novelty based on intuition, and I recognize that there is variation in editors just as there is in any set of reviews by external referees, but this does not, however, directly implicate the loss of novelty or creativity as an important consideration when reviewing. On the con-trary, perhaps we should embrace it, improve how we evaluate it, formalize it, and place it in its appropriate context.
科学从根本上说是一种创造性的追求。在这个过程的每一步,都采用了对手头的科学任务有用的新想法——这就是创造力的定义(Runco和Jaeger, 2012)。在最近一篇关于新颖性和编辑同行评议的评论中,有人建议放弃新颖性作为编辑决定拒绝的标准(Arnqvist 2013)。我发现这是一个具有挑战性的命题,至少有两个原因。新鲜感很重要。编辑器是有用的。我非常重视我们工作的创造性。我并没有将这种对新颖和有用的评估限制在作者提出的解释上,而是将对这一标准的研究应用于应用、视觉、统计和不同想法的整合,这些想法在它们的组合中变得像杂交活力一样新颖。重要的是,创造力研究是一个广泛而成熟的领域。培训(Graham et al. 2012, Ha 2006, Scott et al. 2004),环境(Hunter et al. 2009),测试(anderson -son et al. 2004, Kim 2008, Kuncel et al. 2007),以及自我与非自我评价(Ng and Feldman 2012)为在同行评审中有效利用创造力提供了明确的指导方针和机会。生态编辑可能会基于直觉追求新颖性,我认识到编辑的变化就像外部评审的任何一组评审一样,但这并不直接意味着在评审时要考虑新颖性或创造性的丧失。相反,也许我们应该接受它,改进我们评估它的方式,使它形式化,并将其置于适当的上下文中。