IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v37y2010i4p239-251.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dialogue in or with the peer review? Evaluating research organizations in order to promote organizational learning

Author

Listed:
  • Finn Hansson

Abstract

Evaluation or assessment of scientific work in universities and other research organizations has traditionally been organized around the peer review system with its almost jury-like functionality. This approach traditionally looked only at the output or the product of scientific work and was for many years, and to some extent is still, acknowledged as uniquely suited to the evaluation of something like scientific work. Today, however, the system is being questioned. A growing reliance on quantitative indicators in science policy, the changing relationship between science and society, and the emergence of theories of knowledge-based organizations have occasioned a rethinking of the peer review process. As a contribution to these discussions, this article presents a case study that can be read as an argument for a more dynamic and interactive model of peer review in the evaluation of research organizations. After presenting the case, it discusses the strengths and weaknesses of this suggested model. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Finn Hansson, 2010. "Dialogue in or with the peer review? Evaluating research organizations in order to promote organizational learning," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(4), pages 239-251, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:37:y:2010:i:4:p:239-251
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234210X496600
    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. David Katende & Edith Namutebi, 2024. "Relevance of Students’ Evaluation of Teacher Characteristics for Quality Teaching at Mountains of the Moon University," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(3s), pages 1846-1862, March.
    2. A. I. M. Jakaria Rahman & Raf Guns & Loet Leydesdorff & Tim C. E. Engels, 2016. "Measuring the match between evaluators and evaluees: cognitive distances between panel members and research groups at the journal level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1639-1663, December.
    3. David Katende, 2024. "Students’ Evaluation of Learning Outcomes for Quality Assurance in the Teaching Process at Mountains of the Moon University, Fort Portal, Uganda in East Africa," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(3s), pages 1764-1784, March.
    4. Irwin Feller, 2013. "Peer review and expert panels as techniques for evaluating the quality of academic research," Chapters, in: Albert N. Link & Nicholas S. Vonortas (ed.), Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation, chapter 5, pages 115-142, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    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:37:y:2010:i:4:p:239-251. 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.