The app could not be started successfully!

Upgrade or use a different browser to experience this app.

Logo des Forschungsdatenzentrums des Deutschen Zentrum für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung
Publication pub-Barlosius.2023$

Peer review’s irremediable flaws: Scientists’ perspectives on grant evaluation in Germany

Details

Authors:
Barlösius, Eva; Paruschke, Laura; Philipps, Axel
Title:
Peer review’s irremediable flaws: Scientists’ perspectives on grant evaluation in Germany
Year of publication:
2023
Source Reference:
Barlösius, E., Paruschke, L. & Philipps, A. (2023). Peer review’s irremediable flaws: Scientists’ perspectives on grant evaluation in Germany. Research Evaluation, Artikel rvad032. Vorab-Onlinepublikation. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad032
DOI:

Abstract

Peer review has developed over time to become the established procedure for assessing and assuring the scientific quality of research. Nevertheless, the procedure has also been variously criticized as conservative, biased, and unfair, among other things. Do scientists regard all these flaws as equally problematic? Do they have the same opinions on which problems are so serious that other selection procedures ought to be considered? The answers to these questions hints at what should be modified in peer review processes as a priority objective. The authors of this paper use survey data to examine how members of the scientific community weight different shortcomings of peer review processes. Which of those processes’ problems do they consider less relevant? Which problems, on the other hand, do they judge to be beyond remedy? Our investigation shows that certain defects of peer review processes are indeed deemed irreparable: (1) legitimate quandaries in the process of fine-tuning the choice between equally eligible research proposals and in the selection of daring ideas; and (2) illegitimate problems due to networks. Science-policy measures to improve peer review processes should therefore clarify the distinction between field-specific remediable and irremediable flaws than is currently the case.

Related Objects

Data Packages (1) Analysis Packages
Sort by
Relevance
Items per page
10
1 - 1 of 1
Survey Period: Dec 15, 2014 - May 6, 2019 Survey Data Type: Quantitative Data
The DZHW Panel Study: Careers of PhD Holders 2014 is a panel study of the DZHW concerning the careers of doctoral graduates. The study analyses how the formal context as well as the learning and development conditions that PhD graduates experienced during ... more
Sort by
Relevance
Items per page
10
1 - 1 of 1

We use cookies for the statistical evaluation of visitor numbers to our website. By continuing to browse this website, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. You can find more information in the data protection statement.