The benefits to climate science of including early-career scientists as reviewers

Q2 Social Sciences
M. Casado, G. Gremion, P. Rosenbaum, J. Caccavo, Kelsey B. Aho, N. Champollion, Sarahl L. Connors, A. Dahood, Alfonso Fernández, M. Lizotte, K. Mintenbeck, E. Poloczanska, G. Fugmann
{"title":"The benefits to climate science of including early-career scientists as reviewers","authors":"M. Casado, G. Gremion, P. Rosenbaum, J. Caccavo, Kelsey B. Aho, N. Champollion, Sarahl L. Connors, A. Dahood, Alfonso Fernández, M. Lizotte, K. Mintenbeck, E. Poloczanska, G. Fugmann","doi":"10.5194/gc-2019-20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Early-career scientists (ECSs) are a large part of the workforce\nin science. While they produce new scientific knowledge that they share in\npublications, they are rarely invited to participate in the peer-review\nprocess. Barriers to the participation of ECSs as peer reviewers include,\namong other things, their lack of visibility to editors, inexperience in the\nreview process and lack of confidence in their scientific knowledge.\nParticipation of ECSs in group reviews, e.g. for regional or global\nassessment reports, provides an opportunity for ECSs to advance their skill\nset and to contribute to policy-relevant products. Here, we present the\noutcomes of a group peer review of the First Order Draft of the\nIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC). Overall, PhD students spent\nmore time on the review than those further advanced in their careers and\nprovided a similar proportion of substantive comments. After the review,\nparticipants reported feeling more confident in their skills, and 86 %\nwere interested in reviewing individually. By soliciting and including ECSs\nin the peer-review process, the scientific community would not only reduce\nthe burden carried by more established scientists but also permit their\nsuccessors to develop important professional skills relevant to advancing\nclimate science and influencing policy.\n","PeriodicalId":52877,"journal":{"name":"Geoscience Communication","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geoscience Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2019-20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Abstract. Early-career scientists (ECSs) are a large part of the workforce in science. While they produce new scientific knowledge that they share in publications, they are rarely invited to participate in the peer-review process. Barriers to the participation of ECSs as peer reviewers include, among other things, their lack of visibility to editors, inexperience in the review process and lack of confidence in their scientific knowledge. Participation of ECSs in group reviews, e.g. for regional or global assessment reports, provides an opportunity for ECSs to advance their skill set and to contribute to policy-relevant products. Here, we present the outcomes of a group peer review of the First Order Draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC). Overall, PhD students spent more time on the review than those further advanced in their careers and provided a similar proportion of substantive comments. After the review, participants reported feeling more confident in their skills, and 86 % were interested in reviewing individually. By soliciting and including ECSs in the peer-review process, the scientific community would not only reduce the burden carried by more established scientists but also permit their successors to develop important professional skills relevant to advancing climate science and influencing policy.
将早期职业科学家纳入审稿人对气候科学的好处
摘要早期职业科学家(ECSs)是科学界劳动力的很大一部分。虽然他们产生了新的科学知识,并在出版物中分享,但他们很少被邀请参与同行评议过程。ECSs作为同行评议人参与的障碍包括,除其他外,他们对编辑缺乏可视性,在评议过程中缺乏经验以及对其科学知识缺乏信心。社区服务提供者参与小组审查,例如区域或全球评估报告,为社区服务提供者提供了一个提高其技能并为政策相关产品做出贡献的机会。在此,我们介绍了政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)关于气候变化中的海洋和冰冻圈特别报告(SROCC)的一阶草案的小组同行评议结果。总的来说,博士生在审稿上花费的时间比那些在职业生涯中取得更大进步的人要多,而且提供实质性意见的比例也差不多。回顾之后,参与者报告说他们对自己的技能更有信心,86%的人对单独回顾感兴趣。通过邀请ECSsin参与同行评审过程,科学界不仅可以减轻更有成就的科学家的负担,还可以让他们的继任者发展与推进气候科学和影响政策相关的重要专业技能。
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
Geoscience Communication
Geoscience Communication Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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