Cited by 179Publishing and Scholarly Communicationscientometrics and bibliometrics researchResearch, Science, and Academia

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The policy challenges of peer review: managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments

Langfeldt, Liv·2006·Research Evaluation

DOI 10.3152/147154406781776039

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Characteristics and challenges of peer review are elucidated from three different perspectives: a social dynamics perspective defining peer review as an important control mechanism in the research community; an uncertainty perspective focusing on the inherent uncertainty in judging research quality: and an organisational perspective focusing on the effects of different ways of organising peer review. Findings from a broad set of empirical studies are used. Peer review often has some conservative and risk-minimising aspects, which may disfavour interdisciplinary and non-conventional research. When the aim is to actively promote interdisciplinary or other kinds of non-conventional research, the involved peer-review system consequently needs to be adjusted to a more risk-taking mode.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3152/147154406781776039

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Still being checked.

Sorted by citations

Evaluation of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research
Klein, J. T. (2008) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.010 · Cited by 692
Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success
Bromham, L. D., Dinnage, R., & Hua, X. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature18315 · Cited by 602
How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management
Ràfols, I., Loet Leydesdorff, A., O’Hare, A., Nightingale, P., & Stirling, A. (2012) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.015 · Cited by 616
Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance and Resource Allocation in Science
Boudreau, K. J., Guinan, E. C., Lakhani, K. R., & Riedl, C. (2014) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2285 · Cited by 518
‘Interdisciplinary strategies’ in U.S. research universities
Sá, C. M. (2007) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-007-9073-5 · Cited by 218
Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices
Luukkonen, T. (2012) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvs001 · Cited by 185
Collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and the epistemology of contemporary science
Andersen, H. M. (2015) · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A · doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.10.006 · Cited by 181
The kaleidoscope of disciplinarity
Sugimoto, C. R., & Weingart, S. (2015) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/jd-06-2014-0082 · Cited by 137
What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?
Guthrie, S., Ghiga, I., & Wooding, S. (2018) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.11917.2 · Cited by 104
Societal impact evaluation: Exploring evaluator perceptions of the characterization of impact under the REF2014: Table 1.
Samuel, G. N., & Derrick, G. (2015) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv007 · Cited by 99
Peer Review or Lottery? A Critical Analysis of Two Different Forms of Decision-making Mechanisms for Allocation of Research Grants
Roumbanis, L. (2019) · Science Technology & Human Values · doi:10.1177/0162243918822744 · Cited by 79
Research excellence in Africa: Policies, perceptions, and performance
Tijssen, R., & Kraemer‐Mbula, E. (2017) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.1093/scipol/scx074 · Cited by 78
Communicating and compromising on disciplinary expertise in the peer review of research proposals
Huutoniemi, K. I. (2012) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312712458478 · Cited by 73
The Pros and Cons of the Use of Altmetrics in Research Assessment
Thelwall, M. A. (2020) · Scholarly Assessment Reports · doi:10.29024/sar.10 · Cited by 75
What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?
Guthrie, S., Ghiga, I., & Wooding, S. (2017) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.11917.1 · Cited by 70
Overcoming early career barriers to interdisciplinary climate change research
Hein, C. J., Hoeve, J. E. T., Gopalakrishnan, S., Livneh, B., Adams, H. D., Marino, E. K., & Weiler, C. S. (2018) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.530 · Cited by 63
Genetic frontiers for conservation: an assessment of synthetic biology and biodiversity conservation: technical assessment
Redford, K. H., Brooks, T. M., MacFarlane, N., & Adams, J. S. (2019) · doi:10.2305/iucn.ch.2019.05.en · Cited by 69
Academic judgments under uncertainty: A study of collective anchoring effects in Swedish Research Council panel groups
Roumbanis, L. (2016) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312716659789 · Cited by 59
The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science
Benda, W. G. G., & Engels, T. (2010) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.03.003 · Cited by 60
The Evaluation Scale: Exploring Decisions About Societal Impact in Peer Review Panels
Derrick, G., & Samuel, G. N. (2016) · Minerva · doi:10.1007/s11024-016-9290-0 · Cited by 64
Scholarly motivations to conduct interdisciplinary climate change research
Milman, A., Marston, J. M., Godsey, S. E., Bolson, J., Jones, H. P., & Weiler, C. S. (2015) · Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences · doi:10.1007/s13412-015-0307-z · Cited by 58
Tourism research quality: Reviewing and assessing interdisciplinarity
Oviedo‐García, M. Á. (2015) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.08.011 · Cited by 48
Peer review for the evaluation of academic research: lessons from the Italian experience
Reale, E., Anna, B., & Costantini, A. (2007) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.3152/095820207x227501 · Cited by 48
Starting to Publish Academic Research as a Doctoral Student
Stoilescu, D., & McDougall, D. E. (2010) · International journal of doctoral studies · doi:10.28945/1333 · Cited by 45
How to improve the use of metrics
Frey, B. S., & Osterloh, M. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/465870a · Cited by 45
Solving multiple-criteria R&D project selection problems with a data-driven evidential reasoning rule
Liu, F., Chen, Y., Yang, J., Xu, D., & Liu, W. (2018) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.10.006 · Cited by 43
Evaluation in research funding agencies: Are structurally diverse teams biased against?
Banal‐Estañol, A., Macho‐Stadler, I., & Pérez‐Castrillo, D. (2019) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.04.008 · Cited by 45
Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number of Peer Reviewers
Snell, R. R. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120838 · Cited by 41
Inconsistencies in the Governance of Interdisciplinarity: the Case of the Italian Higher Education System
Donina, D., Seeber, M., & Paleari, S. (2017) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.1093/scipol/scx019 · Cited by 46
How do journals of different rank instruct peer reviewers? Reviewer guidelines in the field of management
Seeber, M. (2020) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03343-1 · Cited by 39
Assessing the impact of JIBS as an interdisciplinary journal: A network approach
Cantwell, J., Piepenbrink, A., & Shukla, P. (2014) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2014.40 · Cited by 39
From a Disciplinary to an Interdisciplinary Design Research: Developing an Integrative Approach for Design
Chou, W. H., & Wong, J. (2015) · International Journal of Art & Design Education · doi:10.1111/jade.12017 · Cited by 31
Capabilities for transdisciplinary research
O’Donovan, C., Michalec, O., & Moon, J. (2021) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvab038 · Cited by 31
Defining the role of cognitive distance in the peer review process with an explorative study of a grant scheme in infection biology
Wang, Q., & Sandström, U. (2015) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv009 · Cited by 31
Peer review assessment of originality in tourism journals: critical perspective of key gatekeepers
Rodríguez, I., Makkonen, T., & Williams, A. M. (2019) · Annals of Tourism Research · doi:10.1016/j.annals.2019.04.003 · Cited by 30
Peer review in funding-by-lottery: A systematic overview and expansion
Shaw, J. (2022) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvac022 · Cited by 36
Disagreement and Agonistic Chance in Peer Review
Roumbanis, L. (2022) · Science, Technology, & Human Values · doi:10.1177/01622439211026016 · Cited by 29
Evaluation for the allocation of university research project funding: Can rules improve the peer review?
Reale, E., & Zinilli, A. (2017) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvx019 · Cited by 29
Conditions that do or do not disadvantage interdisciplinary research proposals in project evaluation
Seeber, M., Vlegels, J., & Cattaneo, M. (2022) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24617 · Cited by 24
Assessing the quality of feedback in the peer-review process
Dobele, A. R. (2015) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360.2015.1011086 · Cited by 23
Incorporation of Early Career Researchers within multidisciplinary research at academic institutions
Sobey, A. J., Townsend, N., Metcalf, C., Bruce, K. D., & Fazi, F. M. (2013) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvt004 · Cited by 23
The impact a-gender: gendered orientations towards research Impact and its evaluation
Chubb, J., & Derrick, G. (2020) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-020-0438-z · Cited by 23
Expert panel reviews of research centers: The site visit process
Lawrenz, F. P., Thao, M., & Johnson, K. (2012) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.01.003 · Cited by 22
Selbststeuerung der Wissenschaft: Peer Review
Neidhardt, F. (2010) · VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-531-91993-5_19 · Cited by 22
How Competition for Funding Impacts Scientific Practice: Building Pre-fab Houses but no Cathedrals
Meirmans, S. (2024) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-024-00465-5 · Cited by 27
Making the cut: How panel reviewers use evaluation devices to select applications at the European Research Council
Brunet, L., & Müller, R. (2022) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvac040 · Cited by 22
Multi/inter/transdisciplinary assessment: A systemic framework proposal to evaluate graduate courses and research teams
de Oliveira, T. M., Amaral, L., & Pacheco, R. C. D. S. (2018) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvy013 · Cited by 27
Agricultural data management and sharing: Best practices and case study
Moore, E. K., Kriesberg, A., Schroeder, S., Geil, K. L., Haugen, I., Barford, C. C., Johns, E., Arthur, D. K., Sheffield, M., Ritchie, S., et al. (2021) · Agronomy Journal · doi:10.1002/agj2.20639 · Cited by 20
How to identify peer-reviewed publications: Open-identity labels in scholarly book publishing
Kulczycki, E., Rozkosz, E. A., Engels, T., Guns, R., Hołowiecki, M., & Pölönen, J. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0214423 · Cited by 19
Editorial delay of food research papers is influenced by authors’ experience but not by country of origin of the manuscripts
Yegros, A., & Amat, C. B. (2009) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-008-2164-y · Cited by 18
Mapping the frontiers of evaluation of public-sector R&D programs
Feller, I. (2007) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.3152/030234207x258996 · Cited by 18
Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review
Hesselberg, J.-O., Dalsbø, T. K., Strømme, H., Svege, I. C., & Fretheim, A. (2023) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000056.pub2 · Cited by 22
The Novelty Paradox & Bias for Normal Science: Evidence from Randomized Medical Grant Proposal EvaluationsPreprint
Boudreau, K. J., Guinan, E. C., Lakhani, K. R., & Riedl, C. (2012) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2184791 · Cited by 17
Interdisciplinary knowledge combinations and emerging technological topics: Implications for reducing uncertainties in research evaluation
Kwon, S., Youtie, J., & Porter, A. L. (2020) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvaa029 · Cited by 16
Exploring the antecedents of interdisciplinarity at the European Research Council: a topic modeling approach
Bonaccorsi, A. J., Melluso, N., & Massucci, F. A. (2022) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04368-9 · Cited by 19
Peer Review and Bibliometric: Potentials and Problems
Bornmann, L. (2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1116-7_8 · Cited by 16
Preserving the Quality of Scientific Research: Peer Review of Research Articles
Silva, P. U. K. D., & Vance, C. K. (2017) · Fascinating life sciences · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50627-2_6 · Cited by 17
Tracking the evolution of waste recycling research using overlay maps of science
Garechana, G., Belver, R. M. R., Carrasco, E. C., & Gavilanes, J. (2012) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2012.01.017 · Cited by 16
Ejes de discusión en la evaluación de la ciencia: revisión por pares, bibliometría y pertinencia
Sarthou, N. F. (2016) · Revista de Estudios Sociales · doi:10.7440/res58.2016.06 · Cited by 15
Judicious Use of Bibliometrics to Supplement Peer Evaluations of Research in Kinesiology
Knudson, D. V. (2019) · Kinesiology Review · doi:10.1123/kr.2017-0046 · Cited by 17
Evaluation of research proposals by peer review panels: broader panels for broader assessments?
Abma-Schouten, R., Gijbels, J., Reijmerink, W., & Meijer, I. (2023) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.1093/scipol/scad009 · Cited by 15
Evaluations by Peer Review in Science
Bornmann, L. (2013) · Springer Science Reviews · doi:10.1007/s40362-012-0002-3 · Cited by 14
The Responsible Conduct of Bioethics Research
Master, Z. (2011) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2011.557302 · Cited by 13
Responses to rejection: The experiences of six women early career researchers in the Education department of an English university
Mercer, J. (2013) · Women s Studies International Forum · doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2013.03.008 · Cited by 13
Effects and Interactions of Researcher’s Motivation and Personality in Promoting Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research
Katoh, S., Aalbers, R., & Sengoku, S. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su132212502 · Cited by 26
How to measure interdisciplinary research? A systemic design for the model of measurement
Cantone, G. G. (2024) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-024-05085-1 · Cited by 18
German Professors’ Motivation to Act as Peer Reviewers in Accreditation and Evaluation Procedures
Ohly, S., & Schneijderberg, C. (2021) · Minerva · doi:10.1007/s11024-020-09430-5 · Cited by 13
Peer reviewers’ dilemmas: a qualitative exploration of decisional conflict in the evaluation of grant applications in the medical humanities and social sciences
Vallée-Tourangeau, G., Wheelock, A., Vandrevala, T., & Harries, P. (2022) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-022-01050-6 · Cited by 15
Understanding relationship between topic selection and academic performance of scientific teams based on entity popularity trend
Zhang, T., Tan, F., Yu, C., Wu, J., & Xu, J. (2022) · Aslib Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1108/ajim-03-2022-0135 · Cited by 12
The Program Evaluation Standards Applied for Metaevaluation Purposes: Investigating Interrater Reliability and Implications for Use.
Wingate, L. A. (2009) · ProQuest LLC eBooks · Cited by 11
Cognitive Bias in Peer Review : a New Approach
Sandström, U. (2009) · Cited by 9
A systematic review on patient perceptions and clinician‐reported outcomes when comparing digital and analog workflows for complete dentures
Fouda, A., Tonogai, J., McDermott, P., Wang, D. X., & Dong, C. C. S. (2024) · Journal of Prosthodontics · doi:10.1111/jopr.13999 · Cited by 9
The effect of facilitating interdisciplinary cooperation on the research productivity of university research teams: The moderating role of government assistance
Ai-hua, C., & Wang, X. (2021) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvab001 · Cited by 8
Let’s agree to agree: The situational academic quality of the UK REF as consensual public knowledge
Milyaeva, S., & Neyland, D. (2023) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/03063127231152915 · Cited by 10
Does the perceived quality of interdisciplinary research vary between fields?
Thelwall, M. A., Kousha, K., Stuart, E., Makita, M., Abdoli, M., Wilson, P., & Levitt, J. M. (2023) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/jd-01-2023-0012 · Cited by 10
Evaluation of Research in Context A Quick Scan of an Emerging Field
Merkx, F., van der Weijden, I., Oostveen, A., van den Besselaar, P., & Spaapen, J. B. (2007) · Cited by 9
Selbststeuerung der Wissenschaft durch Peer-Review-Verfahren
Neidhardt, F. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-05455-7_22 · Cited by 9
Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review
Hesselberg, J., Dalsbø, T. K., Strømme, H., Svege, I. C., & Fretheim, A. (2020) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000056 · Cited by 9
Expert elicitation on the uncertainties associated with chronic wasting disease
Tyshenko, M. G., Oraby, T. F., Darshan, S., Westphal, M., Croteau, M. C., Aspinall, W. P., ElSaadany, S., Krewski, D. R., & Cashman, N. R. (2016) · Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health · doi:10.1080/15287394.2016.1174007 · Cited by 9
Interdisciplinary Accountability in the Evaluation of Research Proposals Prospects for academic quality control across disciplinary boundaries
Huutoniemi, K. I. (2012) · Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja · Cited by 9
A Nordic evaluation tradition? A look at the peer-reviewed evaluation literature
Nielsen, S. B., & Winther, D. M. (2014) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389014540703 · Cited by 8
Research cultures as an explanatory factor
Gläser, J., Bielick, J., Jungmann, R., Laudel, G., Lettkemann, E., Petschick, G., & Tschida, U. (2015) · Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie · doi:10.1007/s11614-015-0177-3 · Cited by 8
The Power of Peer Review on Transdisciplinary Discovery
Mäkinen, E. I. (2019) · Science Technology & Human Values · doi:10.1177/0162243918822741 · Cited by 8
Selecting competent referees to assess research projects proposals: A study of referees' registers
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Viel, F. V. (2012) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvs031 · Cited by 7
Research Programmes That Promote Novel, Ambitious, Unconventional and High-Risk Research: An Analysis
Prendergast, P. J., Brown, S., & Britton, J. R. (2008) · Industry and Higher Education · doi:10.5367/000000008785201793 · Cited by 7
Frequency and Type of Conflicts of Interest in the Peer Review of Basic Biomedical Research Funding Applications: Self-Reporting Versus Manual Detection
Gallo, S. A., LeMaster, M. P., & Glisson, S. R. (2015) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9631-7 · Cited by 7
Evaluation of Research(ers) and its Threat to Epistemic Pluralisms
Viola, M. (2018) · European journal of analytic philosophy · doi:10.31820/ejap.13.2.4 · Cited by 7
Efficiency and flexibility in research funding. A comparative study of funding instruments and review criteria.
Langfeldt, L., & Scordato, L. (2016) · BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) · doi:10.13140/rg.2.1.4568.2165 · Cited by 7
Self-citation
Similar‐to‐me effects in the grant application process: Applicants, panellists, and the likelihood of obtaining funds
Banal‐Estañol, A., Liu, Q., Macho‐Stadler, I., & Pérez‐Castrillo, D. (2023) · R and D Management · doi:10.1111/radm.12601 · Cited by 6
Evaluating Transdisciplinary Research Quality
Borlaug, S. B., & Svartefoss, S. M. (2024) · SpringerBriefs in political science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-69580-3_3 · Cited by 6
Competitive funding and academic-industry collaboration: policy trends and insights
Behfar, S. K., Shekhtman, L., & Crowcroft, J. (2024) · Data & Policy · doi:10.1017/dap.2024.81 · Cited by 6
More Than Euros: Exploring the Construction of Project Grants as Prizes and Consolations
Edlund, P. (2023) · Minerva · doi:10.1007/s11024-023-09501-3 · Cited by 6
Exploring the degree of delegated authority for the peer review of societal impact
Derrick, G., & Samuel, G. N. (2017) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.1093/scipol/scx091 · Cited by 9
Neue Evaluationsregime? Von der Inquisition zur Evaluation
Hornbostel, S. (2008) · VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-531-90863-2_5 · Cited by 6
The Long Shadow of Peer Review on the Preparation of Artist Educators
Walker, L. N. (2013) · Arts Education Policy Review · doi:10.1080/10632913.2013.826058 · Cited by 6
Reviewing applications by women - critical use of additive and reasoning evaluation methodsPreprint
Melin, G. (2007) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 6
The European Project OpenUP: OPENing UP New Methods, Indicators and Tools for Peer Review, Impact Measurement and Dissemination of Research Results
Bardi, A., Casarosa, V., & Manghi, P. (2017) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73165-0_24 · Cited by 5
Selbststeuerung der Wissenschaft durch Peer-Review-Verfahren
Neidhardt, F. (2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-05677-3_22-1 · Cited by 5
Smart Policies for Societies in Transition
Benner, M., Marklund, G., & Serger, S. S. (2022) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781788970815 · Cited by 5
Ex ante evaluation of interdisciplinary research projects: A literature review
Oviedo‐García, M. Á. (2016) · Social Science Information · doi:10.1177/0539018416658147 · Cited by 5

Authors: Langfeldt, L.
Corresponding author: Langfeldt, Liv
ORCID: Langfeldt, Liv
Venue: Research Evaluation
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published: 2006-04-01
Volume: 15
Issue: 1
Pages: 31-41
ISSN: 0958-2029 (ISSN-L)
1471-5449
DOI: 10.3152/147154406781776039
OpenAlex: W2078257123
Cited by: 179
References: 0
Citations by year: 2026: 11 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 12
FWCI: 29.01
Type: journal article
Language: en
Open access: closed
Locations: Research Evaluation (publishedVersion)
RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics: Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Research, Science, and Academia
Keywords: peer review, research evaluation policy, peer review bias, conflicts of interest, interdisciplinary research, research quality assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

The policy challenges of peer review: managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments

Abstract

Overview

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Claims other papers make about this one

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks