1 / 10

WP 9: PEER REVIEW

WP 9: PEER REVIEW. Richard Walker November 18, 2011. Overview. State of progress and deliverables D9.2 Table of Contents Progress report UMA Frontiers Work plan. State of progress and deliverables. D9.1: Specifications of model , indicators and representations

zandra
Télécharger la présentation

WP 9: PEER REVIEW

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WP 9: PEER REVIEW Richard Walker November 18, 2011

  2. Overview • State of progress and deliverables • D9.2 Table of Contents • Progress report • UMA • Frontiers • Work plan

  3. State of progress and deliverables • D9.1: Specifications of model, indicators and representations • Completed (October 2011) • Based on conceptual model • Data sources for study • Hypotheses • Dependent and independent variables (indicators) • Tools • D9.2 Characterization and evaluation of specific author reviewer networks • Due (June 2012) • Test hypotheses defined in D9.1 with data from FrontiersIn and UMAP2011 using SISOB tools

  4. D9.2 Table of Contents • Goals and structure of report • Hypotheses • Methodology • Testing the hypotheses • Replicating previous studies • Impact of social networks on author performance • Impact of social networks on institutional performance • Impact of social networks on social impact • Concluding notes

  5. Work by UMA

  6. Work by FrontiersIn • Preliminary exploration role of gender in first authors and reviewers • Tested overall rejection rates (surprisingly low) • Previous studies (1970s and 1980s) show male reviewers give poor marks to female authors

  7. Results • Authors did better when reviewed by reviewers of same sex (non-significant) • Female first authors rejected less frequently than male first authors (non-significant) • No difference in overall rejection rates for male and female reviewers • BUT overall effect of author-reviewer gender pairing close to significance (ChiSquared, p=0.06) Interpretations • Rejection rate not an adequate indicator • Historical change since previous studies

  8. Data

  9. Work Plan • Complete replication of previous studies (January 2012) • Begin study of social network effects (February 2012) Requires tools • Begin study of social impact effects (March 2012) Requires tools • Complete all studies (Mid-May 2012) • Begin drafting deliverable (Mid-May 2012) • Complete deliverable (June 2012)

  10. Requirements • Tools for network visualization • Tools to compute network indicators • Tools to compute aggregate indicators for institutions

More Related