Dialogue in or with the peer review? Evaluating research organizations in order to promote organizational learning
Finn Hansson
Science and Public Policy, 2010, vol. 37, issue 4, 239-251
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.
Date: 2010
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)
Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234210X496600 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:scippl:v:37:y:2010:i:4:p:239-251
Access Statistics for this article
Science and Public Policy is currently edited by Nicoletta Corrocher, Jeong-Dong Lee, Mireille Matt and Nicholas Vonortas
More articles in Science and Public Policy from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().