Literature DB >> 11840960

Peer review and innovation.

Raymond E Spier1.   

Abstract

Two important aspects of the relationship between peer review and innovation includes the acceptance of articles for publication in journals and the assessment of applications for grants for the funding of research work. While there are well-known examples of the rejection by journals of first choice of many papers that have radically changed the way we think about the world outside ourselves, such papers do get published eventually, however tortuous the process required. With grant applications the situation differs in that the refusal of a grant necessarily curtails the possible research that may be attempted. Here there are many reasons for conservatism and reservation as to the ability of a grant allocation process based on peer review to deliver truly innovative investigations. Other methods are needed; although such methods need not be applied across the board, they should constitute the methods whereby some 10-20% of the grant monies are assigned. The nomination of prizes for specific accomplishments is one way of achieving innovation although this presumes that investigators or institution already have available the money necessary to effect the innovations; otherwise it is a question of the selection and funding of particular individuals or institutions and requiring them to solve particular problems that are set in the broadest of terms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11840960     DOI: 10.1007/s11948-002-0035-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics        ISSN: 1353-3452            Impact factor:   3.777


  5 in total

1.  The perils of peer review.

Authors:  R Roy; J R Ashburn
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-11-22       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation.

Authors:  D F Horrobin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Peer review of grant applications: a harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research?

Authors:  D F Horrobin
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-11-09       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  NIH plans peer-review overhaul.

Authors:  E Marshall
Journal:  Science       Date:  1997-05-09       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Chance and consensus in peer review.

Authors:  S Cole; J R Cole; G A Simon
Journal:  Science       Date:  1981-11-20       Impact factor: 47.728

  5 in total
  10 in total

1.  Responsible authorship and peer review.

Authors:  James R Wilson
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  On the management of funding of research in science and engineering.

Authors:  Raymond E Spier; Stephanie J Bird
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  A Discussion on Governmental Research Grants.

Authors:  Hui Fang
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2014-08-22       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  Some opinions on the review process of research papers destined for publication.

Authors:  Ehsan Roohi; Omid Mahian
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2014-04-30       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?

Authors:  Aceil Al-Khatib; Jaime A Teixeira da Silva
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-09-13       Impact factor: 3.525

6.  Publishing, Objectivity, and Prestige.

Authors:  Khaled Moustafa
Journal:  J Microbiol Biol Educ       Date:  2016-12-02

Review 7.  What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?

Authors:  Susan Guthrie; Ioana Ghiga; Steven Wooding
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2017-08-07

8.  Why can't we make research grant allocation systems more consistent? A personal opinion.

Authors:  Roger Cousens
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2019-02-10       Impact factor: 2.912

Review 9.  Predatory journals: The rise of worthless biomedical science.

Authors:  H Sharma; S Verma
Journal:  J Postgrad Med       Date:  2018 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.476

10.  Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: an evaluation of the first 117 research groups.

Authors:  Balázs Győrffy; Andrea Magda Nagy; Péter Herman; Ádám Török
Journal:  Scientometrics       Date:  2018-07-20       Impact factor: 3.238

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.