|
|
Registro Completo |
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Territorial. |
Data corrente: |
12/08/2024 |
Data da última atualização: |
12/08/2024 |
Tipo da produção científica: |
Resumo em Anais de Congresso |
Autoria: |
PINTO, D. M. |
Afiliação: |
DANIELA MACIEL PINTO, CNPM. |
Título: |
Deviations in Peer Review Processes: a study of Funding Selection Practices. |
Ano de publicação: |
2024 |
Fonte/Imprenta: |
In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE OF SCIENCE AND INNOVATION, 2024, Washington. Proceedings... Whashington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2024. |
Páginas: |
1 p. |
Idioma: |
Inglês |
Conteúdo: |
ABSTRACT: Recent discussions regarding more transparent practices of research prioritization, selection, and funding involves, among other aspects, a deeper understanding of traditional procedures for scientific evaluation, known as peer review. In this context, discussions frequently highlight potential limitations of the classic peer review model, which is seen as vulnerable to various forms of interference and inaccuracies that may impact both the selection of research for funding and the determination of publication outcomes (Recio- Saucedo et al., 2022). Despite this acknowledgment, research on peer review is scarce, both when considering this practice in the context of scientific journals (Squazzoni et al., 2020) and funding agencies. One of the main reasons for this gap is the absence of data. |
Palavras-Chave: |
Research prioritization. |
Categoria do assunto: |
-- |
URL: |
https://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/bitstream/doc/1166433/1/6237.pdf
|
Marc: |
LEADER 01324nam a2200133 a 4500 001 2166433 005 2024-08-12 008 2024 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d 100 1 $aPINTO, D. M. 245 $aDeviations in Peer Review Processes$ba study of Funding Selection Practices.$h[electronic resource] 260 $aIn: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE OF SCIENCE AND INNOVATION, 2024, Washington. Proceedings... Whashington, DC: National Academy of Sciences$c2024 300 $a1 p. 520 $aABSTRACT: Recent discussions regarding more transparent practices of research prioritization, selection, and funding involves, among other aspects, a deeper understanding of traditional procedures for scientific evaluation, known as peer review. In this context, discussions frequently highlight potential limitations of the classic peer review model, which is seen as vulnerable to various forms of interference and inaccuracies that may impact both the selection of research for funding and the determination of publication outcomes (Recio- Saucedo et al., 2022). Despite this acknowledgment, research on peer review is scarce, both when considering this practice in the context of scientific journals (Squazzoni et al., 2020) and funding agencies. One of the main reasons for this gap is the absence of data. 653 $aResearch prioritization
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
Registro original: |
Embrapa Territorial (CNPM) |
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
URL |
Voltar
|
|
Registros recuperados : 101 | |
Registros recuperados : 101 | |
|
Nenhum registro encontrado para a expressão de busca informada. |
|
|