IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v14y2005i3p186-198.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advantages and dangers of ‘remote’ peer evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Jochen Gläser
  • Grit Laudel

Abstract

Under conditions of an increasing scarcity of reviewer time, a ‘remote peer review’ of research organisations — conducted without meetings between assessors or with the assessed academics at their institution — might be an easier and cheaper solution. This paper explores the impact of ‘remoteness’ on the practices of reviewers by analysing the recent Quality Review of the Australian National University. A taylorisation of the review process was observed that split the roles of designing the process, assessing the research, synthesising results, and taking responsibility for the outcome of the assessment. This taylorisation of the assessment process, the heterogeneity of individual assessment practices, and the low availability of publications in electronic format led to the conclusion that further organisational innovations are necessary in order to make remote peer reviews feasible. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Jochen Gläser & Grit Laudel, 2005. "Advantages and dangers of ‘remote’ peer evaluation," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 186-198, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:14:y:2005:i:3:p:186-198
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154405781776085
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Soo Jeung Lee & Christian Schneijderberg & Yangson Kim & Isabel Steinhardt, 2021. "Have Academics’ Citation Patterns Changed in Response to the Rise of World University Rankings? A Test Using First-Citation Speeds," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Sven E. Hug & Mirjam Aeschbach, 2020. "Criteria for assessing grant applications: a systematic review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-15, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:rseval:v:14:y:2005:i:3:p:186-198. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    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.