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.