20 Matching Results

Search Results

Does open access really threaten peer review?

Description: In this paper, the author discusses whether open access threatens peer review, as implied by the Association of American Publishers in their endorsement of the Research Works Act. The author suggests that we need to experiment with new models of peer evaluation.
Date: January 11, 2012
Creator: Holbrook, J. Britt
Partner: UNT College of Arts and Sciences

Science: For Science's or Society's Sake? Owning the National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts Criterion

Description: Article describing changes in the U.S. National Science Foundation's (NSF) merit review criteria. The authors argue that scientists are more likely to preserve their autonomy by embracing - or 'owning' - the new Broader Impacts Criterion rather than resisting it.
Date: March 1, 2012
Creator: Holbrook, J. Britt & Frodeman, Robert
Partner: UNT College of Arts and Sciences

The Promise and Perils of Transformative Research

Description: This report is on the workshop 'Transformative Research: Ethical and Societal Implications'. Workshop conversations cluster under the four headings of the history and definitions, promotion, evaluation, and integration of transformative research.
Date: March 2012
Creator: Frodeman, Robert & Holbrook, J. Britt
Partner: UNT College of Arts and Sciences

Comparative Assessment of Peer Review (CAPR): EU/US workshop on peer review: Assessing "broader impact" in research grant applications

Description: This is the report of a workshop focusing on the use of broader societal impacts criteria as part of the review process at the European Commission. There is both a historical account and some thinking about how 'impact' ought to be incorporated into Horizon 2020 (the funding scheme formerly known as FP8). Since the US NSF is also currently rethinking the details of its merit review process, and since there is an interesting comparison between NSF's and the EC's approaches to impact, the authors have also included a focus on NSF's Broader Impacts Criterion. The workshop was both a research opportunity (under SciSIP grant #0830387) and an effort to use that research to help inform policy for science (in terms of informing peer review models).
Date: December 2010
Creator: Holbrook, J. Britt & Frodeman, Robert
Partner: UNT College of Arts and Sciences

Philosophy Matters - Examining the Value of Knowledge

Description: This paper discusses the University of North Texas' (UNT) Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity (CSID), where philosophers continue to examine the value of knowledge. The authors also discuss one example of CSID's work with the Comparative Assessment of Peer Review (CAPR) project. CAPR is a four-year project (2008-2012) studying the changing nature of peer review processes across six U.S. and foreign public science agencies. CAPR is funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation's (NSF) Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP) program.
Date: May 10, 2012
Creator: Frodeman, Robert & Holbrook, J. Britt
Partner: UNT College of Arts and Sciences

Bieberians at the Gate?

Description: Article discussing theories on the evaluation of philosophy and philosophers and the peer review process.
Date: December 10, 2012
Creator: Frodeman, Robert; Holbrook, J. Britt & Briggle, Adam
Partner: UNT College of Arts and Sciences