Reading PAGE

Peer Evaluation activity

Trusted by 1
Reviews 1
Emailed by 1
Downloads 6646
Views 239
Full text requests 3
Collected by 2
Followed by 6
Following... 20
Funded by 3

Total impact ?

    Send a

    J. Britt has...

    Trusted 1
    Reviewed 4
    Emailed 1
    Shared/re-used 1
    Discussed 0
    Invited 0
    Collected 2

    This was brought to you by:

    block this user J. Britt Holbrook

    Other / britt.holbrook@unt.edu

    Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity, University of North Texas
    School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology
    Philosophy of/as Interdisciplinarity Network
    Public Philosophy Network

    Blue Skies, Impacts, and Peer Review

    Export to Mendeley

    This paper describes the results of an on-line survey regarding the incorporation of societal impacts considerations into the peer review of grant proposals submitted to public science funding bodies. The survey investigated perceptions regarding the use of scientific peers to judge not only the intrinsic scientific value of proposed research, but also its instrumental value to society. Members of the scientific community have expressed – some more stridently than others – resistance to the use of such societal impact considerations. We sought to understand why. Results of the survey, based on a convenience sample of 428 participants (including individuals from four different funding agencies as well as non-academics), suggest that such resistance may be due to a lack of desire rather than a lack of confidence where judging impacts is concerned. In other words, it may be less that scientists feel unable to judge broader societal impacts and more that they are unwilling to do so.

    Oh la laClose

    Your session has expired but don’t worry, your message
    has been saved.Please log in and we’ll bring you back
    to this page. You’ll just need to click “Send”.

    Your evaluation is of great value to our authors and readers. Many thanks for your time.

    Review Close

    Short review
    Select a comment
    Select a grade
    You and the author
    Anonymity My review is anonymous( Log in  or  Register )
    publish
    Close

    When you're done, click "publish"

    Only blue fields are mandatory.

    Relation to the author*
    Overall Comment*
    Anonymity* My review is anonymous( Log in  or  Register )
     

    Focus & Objectives*

    Have the objectives and the central topic been clearly introduced?

    Novelty & Originality*

    Do you consider this work to be an interesting contribution to knowledge?

    Arrangement, Transition and Logic

    Are the different sections of this work well arranged and distributed?

    Methodology & Results

    Is the author's methodology relevant to both the objectives and the results?

    Data Settings & Figures

    Were tables and figures appropriate and well conceived?

    References and bibliography

    Is this work well documented and has the bibliography been properly established?

    Writing

    Is this work well written, checked and edited?

    Write Your Review (you can paste text as well)
    Please be civil and constructive. Thank you.


    Grade (optional, N/A by default)

    N/A 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
    Close

    Your mailing list is currently empty.
    It will build up as you send messages
    and links to your peers.

     No one besides you has access to this list.
    Close
    Enter the e-mail addresses of your recipients in the box below.  Note: Peer Evaluation will NOT store these email addresses   log in
    Your recipients

    Your message:

    Your email : Your email address will not be stored or shared with others.

    Your message has been sent.

    Description

    Title : Blue Skies, Impacts, and Peer Review
    Author(s) : J. Britt Holbrook
    Abstract : This paper describes the results of an on-line survey regarding the incorporation of societal impacts considerations into the peer review of grant proposals submitted to public science funding bodies. The survey investigated perceptions regarding the use of scientific peers to judge not only the intrinsic scientific value of proposed research, but also its instrumental value to society. Members of the scientific community have expressed – some more stridently than others – resistance to the use of such societal impact considerations. We sought to understand why. Results of the survey, based on a convenience sample of 428 participants (including individuals from four different funding agencies as well as non-academics), suggest that such resistance may be due to a lack of desire rather than a lack of confidence where judging impacts is concerned. In other words, it may be less that scientists feel unable to judge broader societal impacts and more that they are unwilling to do so.
    Keywords : peer review, impact, basic research, autonomy

    Subject : unspecified
    Area : Philosophy
    Language : English
    Year : 2013

    Affiliations Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity, University of North Texas
    Doi : 10.13130/2282-5398/2914

    Leave a comment

    This contribution has not been reviewed yet. review?

    You may receive the Trusted member label after :

    • Reviewing 10 uploads, whatever the media type.
    • Being trusted by 10 peers.
    • If you are blocked by 10 peers the "Trust label" will be suspended from your page. We encourage you to contact the administrator to contest the suspension.

    Does this seem fair to you? Please make your suggestions.

    Please select an affiliation to sign your evaluation:

    Cancel Evaluation Save

    Please select an affiliation:

    Cancel   Save

    J. Britt's Peer Evaluation activity

    Trusted by 1
    • Gloria Origgi, Research Fellow, CNRS, Institut Nicod, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Paris.
    Reviews 1

    Title of the work: Research Impact: We Need Negative Metrics Too

    Emailed by 1
    • J. Britt Holbrook, Other, Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity, University of North Texas.
    Downloads 6646
    Views 239
    Full text requests 3
    Collected by 2
    Followed by 6
    • Christophe Al-Saleh, Lecturer, Université de Picardie, Amiens, France.
    • Aalam Wassef, Publisher, Founder of Peer Evaluation, Galerie Conradi.
    • Gloria Origgi, Research Fellow, CNRS, Institut Nicod, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Paris.
    • Mario Neve, Associate Professor, Department of Cultural Heritage, University of Bologna, Ravenna Campus, Ravenna.
    • Thomas Johnson, Lecturer, University of Melbourne.
    • Kelli Barr, Junior professional, Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, Center for the Study of Interdisicplinarity, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, FL.
    Following... 20
    • Gloria Origgi, Research Fellow, CNRS, Institut Nicod, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Paris.
    • Stevan Harnad, Professor, University of Southampton.
    • Peer Evaluation, Publisher, Peer Evaluation, Collective Developments.
    • Aalam Wassef, Publisher, Founder of Peer Evaluation, Galerie Conradi.
    • Clement Levallois, Post Doctorate, Rotterdam School of Management, E-humanities group of the KNAW, Erasmus Studio, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Gephi Consortium.
    • Christophe Al-Saleh, Lecturer, Université de Picardie, Amiens, France.
    • Nathias von Helling, Student, Ph.D. Level, speculative metaphysics.
    • Federico Viola, Student, Ph.D. Level, Philosophy Faculty, Freiburg.
    • Barry Smith, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
    • Richard Price, Independent researcher, Oxford University.
    • Marc Augier, Professor, SKEMA, Sophia Antipolis, SKEMA Business School, Suzhou, China.
    • Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Associate Professor, Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Computer Science Lab, Västerås, Sweden.
    • Claudia Koltzenburg, Multi-disciplinary, Clinic for Stem Cell Transplantation, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendrof, Hamburg.
    • Giulio Lizzi, Student, Ph.D. Level, University of Perugia / University of Lugano, University of Perugia (PhD candidate), University of Lugano (visiting researcher).
    • Markus Peschl, Professor, University of Vienna.
    • Niki Pfeifer, Post Doctorate, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Faculty 10, Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, Munich, Germany, Tilburg University, The Tilburg Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
    • Mario Neve, Associate Professor, Department of Cultural Heritage, University of Bologna, Ravenna Campus, Ravenna.
    • Robert Frodeman, Professor, Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas, Denton.
    • Heather Piwowar, Post Doctorate, DataONE at NESCent, Dryad data repository, University of British Columbia.
    • Luciano Floridi, Professor, Hertfordshire and Oxford.
    Funded by 3
    • US NSF Workshop: Assessing the Broader Societal Impact of Funding Techno-Scientific Research, Grant Number 0649573 / Year 2007
    • US NSF SciSIP (MOD): A Comparative Assessment of Models for Integrating Societal Impacts Concerns into the Peer Review of Grant Proposals , Grant Number 0830387 / Year 2008
    • US NSF Transformative Research: Social and Ethical Implications, Grant Number 1129067 / Year 2011

    J. Britt has...

    Trusted 1
    Reviewed 4

    Title of the work: Citizen Science and the Academic Spring

    Emailed 1
    Shared/re-used 1
    Discussed 0
    Invited 0
    Collected 2
    Invite this peer to...
    Title
    Start date (dd/mm/aaaa)
    Location
    URL
    Message
    send
    Close

    Full Text request

    Your request will be sent.

    Please enter your email address to be notified
    when this article becomes available

    Your email


     
    Your email address will not be shared or spammed.