Peer Review

5,154 views

Published on

Peer review

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
5,154
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
42
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
33
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Peer Review

  1. 1. Perceptions in Science <br />Unit 5:D1<br />
  2. 2. Peer Review<br />Aims: to understand peer review and identify its strengths and weaknesses<br />
  3. 3. D1explain the necessity for peerreview and why sometimes there is resistance to new scientific theories<br />For D1, learners need to be aware of a range of professional journals and understand that this is how scientific developments are communicated to the scientific world. They must understand the process a scientific paper is subject to in order for it to be published, and be able to explain the peer-review process. Drawing on their understanding of the development of scientific theories, they must then explain using examples, why a new theory is often greeted with scepticism and takes time to become accepted.<br />Hand in w/c Nov 30th 2009<br />
  4. 4. And sends it to the editor...<br />The scientist writes up the research...<br />Who sends it to other scientists for peer review...<br />They give their recommendations to the editor...<br />...who may reject it...<br />...return it to the scientist for corrections...<br />...or accept it for publication!<br />
  5. 5. Peer review: key questions<br />What are the strengths of peer review?<br />What are the shortfalls of peer review? <br />Does it rely too much upon scientists being honest? <br />Is there a better system for appraising research?<br />Does peer review detect fraud and misconduct?<br />Is maverick science rejected through peer review?<br />Does the peer review process slow down advances in scientific and medical knowledge?<br />
  6. 6. Other avenues to pursue:<br />Stephen C. Meyer’s paper in<br />Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.<br />Peer review journal edited by Sternberg<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy<br />Alan Sokal’s hoax paper:<br />“Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” Social Text 46/47(1996) pp. 217-252. <br />http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/11/15/specials/sokal-fish.html<br />http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html<br />
  7. 7. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html<br />
  8. 8. http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/<br />
  9. 9. Thomas Kuhn<br />1922-1996<br />

×