IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v6y1996i1p19-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientific research: demystifying peer review

Author

Listed:
  • William Solesbury

Abstract

The commitment to peer review as a basis for judging science is deeply rooted in academic culture, and has been largely accepted in the UK's £2 billion annual public funding of science. Yet the criteria are insufficiently transparent for public accountability. In practice peer review focuses on three concerns. ‘Fitness for purpose’ relates to the means to be used in the science — if unfit, the science is invalid, certainly not worth funding. ‘Knowledge added’ relates to the ways in which and the degree to which the science may add to the existing stock of knowledge — all science worth funding should offer some gain. ‘Value for money’, where the value is assessed as knowledge-added, is the appropriate criterion for making choices with limited budgets. This three-stage decision algorithm can demystify and defend peer-review practice. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • William Solesbury, 1996. "Scientific research: demystifying peer review," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 19-23, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:6:y:1996:i:1:p:19-23
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/rev/6.1.19
    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.

    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:6:y:1996:i:1:p:19-23. 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.