同行评审小组对研究提案的评估:更广泛的小组进行更广泛的评估?

IF 2.6 4区 管理学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Rebecca Abma-Schouten, Joey Gijbels, W. Reijmerink, I. Meijer
{"title":"同行评审小组对研究提案的评估:更广泛的小组进行更广泛的评估?","authors":"Rebecca Abma-Schouten, Joey Gijbels, W. Reijmerink, I. Meijer","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Panel peer review is widely used to decide which research proposals receive funding. Through this exploratory observational study at two large biomedical and health research funders in the Netherlands, we gain insight into how scientific quality and societal relevance are discussed in panel meetings. We explore, in ten review panel meetings of biomedical and health funding programmes, how panel composition and formal assessment criteria affect the arguments used. We observe that more scientific arguments are used than arguments related to societal relevance and expected impact. Also, more diverse panels result in a wider range of arguments, largely for the benefit of arguments related to societal relevance and impact. We discuss how funders can contribute to the quality of peer review by creating a shared conceptual framework that better defines research quality and societal relevance. We also contribute to a further understanding of the role of diverse peer review panels.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of research proposals by peer review panels: broader panels for broader assessments?\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca Abma-Schouten, Joey Gijbels, W. Reijmerink, I. Meijer\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/scipol/scad009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Panel peer review is widely used to decide which research proposals receive funding. Through this exploratory observational study at two large biomedical and health research funders in the Netherlands, we gain insight into how scientific quality and societal relevance are discussed in panel meetings. We explore, in ten review panel meetings of biomedical and health funding programmes, how panel composition and formal assessment criteria affect the arguments used. We observe that more scientific arguments are used than arguments related to societal relevance and expected impact. Also, more diverse panels result in a wider range of arguments, largely for the benefit of arguments related to societal relevance and impact. We discuss how funders can contribute to the quality of peer review by creating a shared conceptual framework that better defines research quality and societal relevance. We also contribute to a further understanding of the role of diverse peer review panels.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47975,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science and Public Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science and Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad009\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad009","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

小组同行评议被广泛用于决定哪些研究提案获得资助。通过对荷兰两家大型生物医学和健康研究资助机构的探索性观察研究,我们深入了解了小组会议如何讨论科学质量和社会相关性。我们在10次生物医学和卫生资助计划的审查小组会议中探讨了小组组成和正式评估标准如何影响所使用的论点。我们观察到,与社会相关性和预期影响相关的论据相比,使用了更多的科学论据。此外,更多样化的小组讨论导致更广泛的争论,主要是为了与社会相关性和影响有关的争论。我们将讨论资助者如何通过创建更好地定义研究质量和社会相关性的共享概念框架来提高同行评议的质量。我们还有助于进一步了解不同同行评审小组的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of research proposals by peer review panels: broader panels for broader assessments?
Panel peer review is widely used to decide which research proposals receive funding. Through this exploratory observational study at two large biomedical and health research funders in the Netherlands, we gain insight into how scientific quality and societal relevance are discussed in panel meetings. We explore, in ten review panel meetings of biomedical and health funding programmes, how panel composition and formal assessment criteria affect the arguments used. We observe that more scientific arguments are used than arguments related to societal relevance and expected impact. Also, more diverse panels result in a wider range of arguments, largely for the benefit of arguments related to societal relevance and impact. We discuss how funders can contribute to the quality of peer review by creating a shared conceptual framework that better defines research quality and societal relevance. We also contribute to a further understanding of the role of diverse peer review panels.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Science and Public Policy is a leading refereed, international journal on public policies for science, technology and innovation, and on their implications for other public policies. It covers basic, applied, high, low, and any other types of S&T, and rich or poorer countries. It is read in around 70 countries, in universities (teaching and research), government ministries and agencies, consultancies, industry and elsewhere.
×
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