IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v37y1993i12p1427-1430.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Judging clinical research questions: What criteria are used?

Author

Listed:
  • Sutherland, H. J.
  • Meslin, E. M.
  • da Cunha, R.
  • Till, J. E.

Abstract

The research question is a crucial aspect of every study. Criteria for the evaluation of the merit of the study question or hypothesis have received surprisingly little attention. A set of non-methodological criteria derived from interviews with 40 researchers (clinical investigators and laboratory scientists) is presented. For both types of researcher, the terms that best described the nature of the criteria included potential impact, justification, feasibility, track record, innovation, intuitive response, aesthetics and politics. The latter three criteria are notably subjective; however all the criteria have an element of non-objectivity. There may well be a reluctance to openly acknowledge that crucial choices about what scientific questions should be explored involve criteria which are themselves not 'objective', and indeed, not even 'scientific'.

Suggested Citation

  • Sutherland, H. J. & Meslin, E. M. & da Cunha, R. & Till, J. E., 1993. "Judging clinical research questions: What criteria are used?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 1427-1430, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:37:y:1993:i:12:p:1427-1430
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(93)90176-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mårtensson, Pär & Fors, Uno & Wallin, Sven-Bertil & Zander, Udo & Nilsson, Gunnar H, 2016. "Evaluating research: A multidisciplinary approach to assessing research practice and quality," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 593-603.
    2. Hendy Abdoul & Christophe Perrey & Philippe Amiel & Florence Tubach & Serge Gottot & Isabelle Durand-Zaleski & Corinne Alberti, 2012. "Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-15, September.
    3. L. Erik Clavería & Eliseo Guallar & Jordi Camí & José Conde & Roberto Pastor & José R. Ricoy & Eduardo Rodríguez-Farré & Fernando Ruiz-Palomo & Emilio Muñoz, 2000. "Does Peer Review Predict the Performance of Research Projects in Health Sciences?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(1), pages 11-23, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:37:y:1993:i:12:p:1427-1430. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.