1 / 7

Peer Review

Peer Review. 3 Fields of QA for Universities Teaching: Evaluation and / or Accreditation Institutional Performance: Audits Research: Peer Review Helmut Konrad Armenia, Dec . 2013. Peer review is a selection model for publications or applications

zazu
Télécharger la présentation

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. Peer Review 3 Fields ofQAforUniversities • Teaching: Evaluation and / or Accreditation • Institutional Performance: Audits • Research: Peer Review Helmut Konrad Armenia, Dec. 2013

  2. Peer reviewis a selectionmodelforpublicationsorapplications Books, Articles, Proposals Peer: meaning is, a Peer is at least on the same level as the author Review: critical reading against the standards in the fields Helmut Konrad Armenia, Dec. 2013

  3. ForArticlesand Books Step 1: The articlegoestotheeditor Step 2: The editorsendsthearticletopeers, nameoftheauthorishidden Step 3: ciriticalremarks: accepted acceptedwithcorretions not accepted Step 4: back totheauthor (namesofthepeersarehidden) „Double blind“ Step 5: Decisionbytheeditor Helmut Konrad Armenia, Dec. 2013

  4. Applicationsfor Research Funds Step 1: Applicationgoes (via University) totheofficeofthefund Step 2: Peers (figuredepents on theamountofmoney), theapplicantisnothidden Step 3: The criticalfindingsofthepeersaregoing back tothefund Step 4: firstdecisions: no yes Yes, but Step 5: In thecaseof „yes, but“, theapplicantcanstart a discussion (sometimesthepeersarenolongerhidden) Helmut Konrad Armenia, Dec. 2013

  5. Limits and Problems / 1 • The anonymityofthepeer: a) nocriticspossible • noneedto do thereviewwithfullengagement (noimpact on thestandingwithinthescientificcommunity) • workload: 21.000 journalsareusingpeerreview Helmut Konrad Armenia, Dec. 2013

  6. Limits and Problems / 2 2. Time frame: • The time betweenwritingandpublication: upto 1 year • The decisionforresearchmoneytakes 6 months/average. The researcherhastosurvive Helmut Konrad Armenia, Dec. 2013

  7. Limits and Problems /3 3. continuationof „schools“ • peersrepresentestablishedpositions • crossdisciplinaryprojectshavehandjumps • Stabilisation of mainstream-research Helmut Konrad Armenia, Dec. 2013

More Related