• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

同行评审与创新。

Peer review and innovation.

作者信息

Spier Raymond E

机构信息

School of Biomedical and Life Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Sci Eng Ethics. 2002 Jan;8(1):99-108; discussion 109-12. doi: 10.1007/s11948-002-0035-0.

DOI:10.1007/s11948-002-0035-0
PMID:11840960
Abstract

Two important aspects of the relationship between peer review and innovation includes the acceptance of articles for publication in journals and the assessment of applications for grants for the funding of research work. While there are well-known examples of the rejection by journals of first choice of many papers that have radically changed the way we think about the world outside ourselves, such papers do get published eventually, however tortuous the process required. With grant applications the situation differs in that the refusal of a grant necessarily curtails the possible research that may be attempted. Here there are many reasons for conservatism and reservation as to the ability of a grant allocation process based on peer review to deliver truly innovative investigations. Other methods are needed; although such methods need not be applied across the board, they should constitute the methods whereby some 10-20% of the grant monies are assigned. The nomination of prizes for specific accomplishments is one way of achieving innovation although this presumes that investigators or institution already have available the money necessary to effect the innovations; otherwise it is a question of the selection and funding of particular individuals or institutions and requiring them to solve particular problems that are set in the broadest of terms.

摘要

同行评审与创新之间关系的两个重要方面包括期刊对文章发表的接受以及对研究工作资金资助申请的评估。虽然有一些广为人知的例子,即许多从根本上改变了我们对自身之外世界看法的首选论文被期刊拒稿,但这些论文最终还是会发表,无论过程多么曲折。对于资助申请,情况有所不同,因为资助申请被拒必然会限制可能尝试的研究。在基于同行评审的资助分配过程能否开展真正具有创新性的研究方面,存在许多保守和保留的理由。需要其他方法;尽管这些方法不必全面应用,但它们应构成分配约10% - 20%资助资金的方法。为特定成就设立奖项是实现创新的一种方式,不过这假定研究人员或机构已经有实施创新所需的资金;否则就是关于挑选特定个人或机构并为其提供资金,要求他们解决以最宽泛术语设定的特定问题。

相似文献

1
Peer review and innovation.同行评审与创新。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2002 Jan;8(1):99-108; discussion 109-12. doi: 10.1007/s11948-002-0035-0.
2
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
3
Intramural pilot funding and internal grant reviews increase research capacity at a school of nursing.校内试点基金和内部资助评审提高了护理学院的研究能力。
Nurs Outlook. 2018 Jan-Feb;66(1):11-17. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2017.06.003. Epub 2017 Jun 10.
4
A study of innovative features in scholarly open access journals.学术开放获取期刊的创新特征研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2011 Dec 16;13(4):e115. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1802.
5
Cost of the NSERC Science Grant Peer Review System exceeds the cost of giving every qualified researcher a baseline grant.加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会(NSERC)科研资助同行评审系统的成本超过了给每位合格研究人员提供基准资助的成本。
Account Res. 2009 Jan-Mar;16(1):13-40. doi: 10.1080/08989620802689821.
6
Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review.传统科学出版存在的问题以及为发表后同行评审寻找更广阔的空间。
Account Res. 2015;22(1):22-40. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.899909.
7
A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review.对盲审同行评议影响的引文分析。
JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):147-9.
8
Tracking publication outcomes of National Institutes of Health grants.追踪美国国立卫生研究院资助项目的发表成果。
Am J Med. 2005 Jun;118(6):658-63. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.02.015.
9
Characteristics of retractions related to faked peer reviews: an overview.与伪造同行评审相关的撤稿特征概述
Postgrad Med J. 2017 Aug;93(1102):499-503. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2016-133969. Epub 2016 Sep 23.
10
The Architecture of an Internal, Scientific, Presubmission Review Program Designed to Increase the Impact and Success of Grant Proposals and Manuscripts.内部科学预投稿审查计划的架构,旨在提高资助提案和手稿的影响力和成功率。
Acad Med. 2020 Feb;95(2):200-206. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003008.

引用本文的文献

1
Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process.向审稿人支付报酬并规范论文数量可能有助于修复同行评审过程。
F1000Res. 2024 Aug 27;13:439. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.148985.1. eCollection 2024.
2
Why can't we make research grant allocation systems more consistent? A personal opinion.为什么我们不能让研究经费分配系统更具一致性?个人观点。
Ecol Evol. 2019 Feb 10;9(4):1536-1544. doi: 10.1002/ece3.4855. eCollection 2019 Feb.
3
Predatory journals: The rise of worthless biomedical science.掠夺性期刊:毫无价值的生物医学科学的兴起。

本文引用的文献

1
The perils of peer review.同行评审的风险。
Nature. 2001 Nov 22;414(6862):393-4. doi: 10.1038/35106722.
2
NIH plans peer-review overhaul.美国国立卫生研究院计划全面改革同行评审。
Science. 1997 May 9;276(5314):888-9. doi: 10.1126/science.276.5314.888.
3
Peer review of grant applications: a harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research?科研基金申请的同行评审:临床研究平庸化的先兆?
J Postgrad Med. 2018 Oct-Dec;64(4):226-231. doi: 10.4103/jpgm.JPGM_347_18.
4
Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: an evaluation of the first 117 research groups.影响“动力”资助获得者科研绩效的因素:对首批117个研究团队的评估
Scientometrics. 2018;117(1):409-426. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2852-1. Epub 2018 Jul 20.
5
Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?生物医学研究是否免受掠夺性审稿人影响?
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Feb;25(1):293-321. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9964-5. Epub 2017 Sep 13.
6
Publishing, Objectivity, and Prestige.出版、客观性与声望。
J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2016 Dec 2;17(3):331-332. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1155. eCollection 2016 Dec.
7
A Discussion on Governmental Research Grants.关于政府研究资助的讨论。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Oct;21(5):1285-96. doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9582-4. Epub 2014 Aug 22.
8
Some opinions on the review process of research papers destined for publication.关于拟发表研究论文评审过程的一些观点。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Jun;21(3):809-12. doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9549-5. Epub 2014 Apr 30.
9
On the management of funding of research in science and engineering.论科学与工程研究资金的管理
Sci Eng Ethics. 2003 Jul;9(3):298-300. doi: 10.1007/s11948-003-0026-9.
10
Responsible authorship and peer review.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2002 Apr;8(2):155-74. doi: 10.1007/s11948-002-0016-3.
Lancet. 1996 Nov 9;348(9037):1293-5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)08029-4.
4
Chance and consensus in peer review.同行评审中的机遇与共识。
Science. 1981 Nov 20;214(4523):881-6. doi: 10.1126/science.7302566.
5
The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation.同行评审的哲学基础与创新的抑制
JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1438-41.