Search

Your search keyword '"Bennett, Amanda M."' showing total 7 results
Start Over Author "Bennett, Amanda M." Publication Year Range Last 10 years
7 results on '"Bennett, Amanda M."'

6. The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?

Author

Ferreira, Catarina, primary, Bastille-Rousseau, Guillaume, additional, Bennett, Amanda M., additional, Ellington, E. Hance, additional, Terwissen, Christine, additional, Austin, Cayla, additional, Borlestean, Adrian, additional, Boudreau, Melanie R., additional, Chan, Kevin, additional, Forsythe, Adrian, additional, Hossie, Thomas J., additional, Landolt, Kristen, additional, Longhi, Jessica, additional, Otis, Josée-Anne, additional, Peers, Michael J. L., additional, Rae, Jason, additional, Seguin, Jacob, additional, Watt, Cristen, additional, Wehtje, Morgan, additional, and Murray, Dennis L., additional

Published
2015
Full Text
View/download PDF

7. The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?

Author

Ferreira, Catarina, Bastille‐Rousseau, Guillaume, Bennett, Amanda M., Ellington, E. Hance, Terwissen, Christine, Austin, Cayla, Borlestean, Adrian, Boudreau, Melanie R., Chan, Kevin, Forsythe, Adrian, Hossie, Thomas J., Landolt, Kristen, Longhi, Jessica, Otis, Josée‐Anne, Peers, Michael J. L., Rae, Jason, Seguin, Jacob, Watt, Cristen, Wehtje, Morgan, and Murray, Dennis L.

Subjects
SCHOLARLY peer review, SCHOLARLY publishing, RESEARCH evaluation, ACADEMIC discourse, SCIENCE publishing
Abstract

ABSTRACT Peer review is pivotal to science and academia, as it represents a widely accepted strategy for ensuring quality control in scientific research. Yet, the peer-review system is poorly adapted to recent changes in the discipline and current societal needs. We provide historical context for the cultural lag that governs peer review that has eventually led to the system's current structural weaknesses (voluntary review, unstandardized review criteria, decentralized process). We argue that some current attempts to upgrade or otherwise modify the peer-review system are merely sticking-plaster solutions to these fundamental flaws, and therefore are unlikely to resolve them in the long term. We claim that for peer review to be relevant, effective, and contemporary with today's publishing demands across scientific disciplines, its main components need to be redesigned. We propose directional changes that are likely to improve the quality, rigour, and timeliness of peer review, and thereby ensure that this critical process serves the community it was created for. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2016
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results