Peer-to-peer

The National Science Foundation (NSF) held a research workshop "Making sense of the broader impacts of science and technology" earlier this month (5 - 7 August), to reflect on why (rather than how) scientists and engineers ought to address the broader impacts of their research. A preliminary report of the workshop is now available (PDF).

The NSF recently changed its "merit review" criteria to require scientists to address these broader impacts, and the workshop was held to explain why the criteria were changed, and to address some key questions, including:
How much freedom should the scientific and engineering community be granted to set the terms of its research?
Why is "the integration of research and education" an important value scientists and engineers ought to uphold? What would such integration actually entail?
Why should scientists and engineers seek to expand the participation of underrepresented groups?
What are the links between science and politics?
Why should scientists and engineers worry about the broader impacts of their research? Do scientists and engineers have a responsibility to pursue research directed toward pressing societal needs when their research is publicly funded?
Is basic research in science and engineering value-neutral?
Do other funding agencies ask applicants to talk about societal benefits?
How can basic researchers articulate the broader impacts of their research?
What does "broader impacts" mean anyway?
The organisers of the NSF meeting welcome your comments and suggestions on the preliminary report and on the questions discussed.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 22, 2007
Categories: Policy and Public | Permalink | Comments (2)

The August editorial in Nature Medicine (13, 887; 2007), 'Why review?', sets out what the journal seeks in its reviewers, given that peer-review underpins the quality of a journal. It goes on to ask readers how the journal can retain the best in the face of the plethora of requests to review from an increasing number of publications.

From the editorial: "Reviewing manuscripts is a fundamental part of the scientific world. Unlike in other professions, however, scientists give their advice for free. If we were to equate reviewers' advice with that of lawyers, journals could never afford the cost. So what motivates reviewers to spend large portions of their precious time analyzing the merits of other people's work?
At the heart of the process, reviewers must have a passion for their area of research and the desire to help advance their field. Propagating a wrong idea by publishing a half-baked paper in a high-profile journal can set a field back and waste both time and resources."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 10, 2007
Categories: Journals | Permalink | Comments (0)

Todd A. Gibson of the University of Colorado writes in Nature's Correspondence (Nature 448, 408; 2007) pages:

Shi V. Liu's correspondence, 'Why are people reluctant to join in open review?' (Nature 447, 1052; 2007; see also Peer to Peer discussion), struck a chord. Recently, I stayed my hand before submitting a comment to an online article, because the comment included as-yet unpublished research that I was reluctant to reveal in such a forum.
I believe that there are two ways to encourage online commenting. These would require little additional commitment, but would improve journal quality and enhance the development of review skills among young scientists.
First, journals could institute periodic post-publication review, in which the journal would solicit formal review of the article, focusing on how well its methods and results have held up, given the research that has been published in the intervening period. Such reviews would provide valuable historical perspective. Second, young scientists participating in journal clubs could be asked to derive and post a consensus comment on the article under discussion.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 09, 2007
Categories: Mentoring and training, Systems | Permalink | Comments (0)