IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v34y2007i8p543-553.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Peer review and the relevance gap: Ten suggestions for policy-makers

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Nightingale
  • Alister Scott

Abstract

Long-term changes in knowledge production can produce mismatches between the research that society requires and the research that society produces — what we term ‘relevance gaps’. This paper explores what can be done to close them. The paper argues that current structures for governing research are often inappropriate, damage the reputation and value system of the academy, and produce a widespread perception that much research is irrelevant. New ways are needed to address how disciplinary value judgements and the structure of peer review influence the direction of academic research. Alternatives to current peer-review practices and guidelines for funding agencies are proposed. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Nightingale & Alister Scott, 2007. "Peer review and the relevance gap: Ten suggestions for policy-makers," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(8), pages 543-553, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:34:y:2007:i:8:p:543-553
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234207X254396
    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. Diego Chavarro & Puay Tang & Ismael Rafols, 2014. "Interdisciplinarity and research on local issues: evidence from a developing country," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 195-209.
    2. Dusan Lesjak, 2019. "Measuring Impacts of Science and Research on the Society: Development, Issues and Solutions," Management, University of Primorska, Faculty of Management Koper, vol. 14(3), pages 219-236.
    3. repec:lib:0000of:v:1:y:2014:i:1:p:3-18 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    5. Ohid Yaqub, 2016. "Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-17, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    6. Llopis,Ãscar & Azagra-Caro,Joaquín M., 2015. "Who do you care about? Scientistsâ personality traits and perceived beneficiary impact," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201503, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 12 Jan 2018.
    7. Schuitema, Geertje & D. Sintov, Nicole, 2017. "Should we quit our jobs? Challenges, barriers and recommendations for interdisciplinary energy research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 246-250.
    8. Pablo D’Este & Puay Tang & Surya Mahdi & Andy Neely & Mabel Sánchez-Barrioluengo, 2013. "The pursuit of academic excellence and business engagement: is it irreconcilable?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 481-502, May.
    9. Yaqub, Ohid, 2018. "Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 169-179.
    10. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 217-233, February.
    11. Osterloh, Margit & Frey, Bruno S., 2020. "How to avoid borrowed plumes in academia," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    12. Katja Rost & Bruno S. Frey, 2011. "Quantitative and Qualitative Rankings of Scholars," Schmalenbach Business Review (sbr), LMU Munich School of Management, vol. 63(1), pages 63-91, January.
    13. Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Kalpana Shankar, 2021. "Does the inclusion of non-academic reviewers make any difference for grant impact panels? [Understanding the Long Term Impact of the Framework Programme, European Policy Evaluation Consortium (EPEC," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(6), pages 763-775.
    14. Matteo Pedrini & Valentina Langella & Mario Alberto Battaglia & Paola Zaratin, 2018. "Assessing the health research’s social impact: a systematic review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1227-1250, March.
    15. Matthew L. Wallace & Ismael Rafols, 2016. "Shaping the Agenda of a Grand Challenge: Institutional Mediation of Priorities in Avian Influenza Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    16. Hashem Atapour & Robabeh Maddahi & Rasoul Zavaraqi, 2024. "Policy citations of scientometric articles: an altmetric study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4423-4436, July.
    17. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Werner Marx, 2016. "Policy documents as sources for measuring societal impact: how often is climate change research mentioned in policy-related documents?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1477-1495, December.
    18. Brooks, Chris & Fenton, Evelyn M. & Walker, James T., 2014. "Gender and the evaluation of research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 990-1001.

    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:scippl:v:34:y:2007:i:8:p:543-553. 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/spp .

    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.