DOCSLIB.ORG

Research Program Peer Review: Purposes, Principles, Practices, Protocols

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Research Program Peer Review: Purposes, Principles, Practices, Protocols RESEARCH PROGRAM PEER REVIEW: PURPOSES, PRINCIPLES, PRACTICES, PROTOCOLS DR. RONALD N. KOSTOFF OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH 800 N. QUINCY STREET ARLINGTON, VA 22217 INTERNET: [email protected] PHONE: 703-696-4198 FAX: 703-696-4274 (THE VIEWS IN THIS REPORT ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. ABSTRACT II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - PEER REVIEW PRINCIPLES III. INTRODUCTION, DEFINITIONS, AND BACKGROUND IV. PEER REVIEW PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES V. PEER REVIEW PRACTICES VI. PEER REVIEW PROTOCOLS VI-A. APPENDIX I - REVIEW PANEL SELECTION APPROACHES VI-B. APPENDIX II - PROGRAM PEER REVIEW PROTOCOL VI-C. APPENDIX III - USE OF PUBLISHED PAPERS IN RESEARCH PROGRAM EVALUATION VI-D APPENDIX IV – NETWORK-CENTRIC PEER REVIEW VI-E APPENDIX V – SIGNIFICANT PEER REVIEW RESOURCES V-1. PROPOSAL PEER REVIEW V-2. PEER REVIEW GUIDE V-3. BIOMEDICAL PEER REVIEW CONGRESSES VI-F LARGE AGENCY PEER REVIEW VI-G DETAILED PEER REVIEW PROTOCOL VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND RELATED REFERENCES KEYWORDS: peer review; GPRA; evaluation criteria; metrics; research assessment; retrospective studies; roadmap; data mining; text mining; research merit; research approach; blind review; research evaluation; research impact; bibliometrics; decision aids. Page 1 Form Approved Report Documentation Page OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED 01 JUN 2004 N/A - 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Research Program Peer Review: Purposes, Principles, Practices, 5b. GRANT NUMBER Protocols 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER DR. RONALD N. KOSTOFF 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH 800 N. QUINCY STREET REPORT NUMBER ARLINGTON, VA 22217 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release, distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT See report 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE UU 299 unclassified unclassified unclassified Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 I. ABSTRACT The purposes, principles, practices, and protocols of research program peer review are described. While the principles are fundamentally generic, and apply to peer review across the full spectrum of performing institutions, as well as manuscript/ proposal/ program peer review, the focus of this report is peer review of proposed and ongoing research programs in federal agencies. Following the self-contained Executive Summary of factors for high-quality peer reviews, the report addresses potential implications of the implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 on federal agency research program peer review practices. Then, the report describes strengths and weaknesses of major peer review components and issues, including: Objectives and Purposes of Peer Review; Quality of Peer Review; Impact of Peer Review Manager on Quality; Selection of Peer Reviewers; Selection of Evaluation Criteria; Secrecy (Reviewer and Performer Anonymity); Objectivity/ Bias/ Fairness of Peer Review; Normalization of Peer Review Panels; Repeatability/ Reliability of Peer Review; Effectiveness/ Predictability of Peer Review; Global Data Awareness; Costs of Performing a Peer Review; Ethical Issues in Peer Review; and Alternatives to Peer Review. The report then presents different federal agency peer review practices, and sample protocols and processes for conducting a successful research program peer review. Some peer review variants, such as the Science Court and Network-Centric Peer Review, are described, and research requirements to improve peer review are discussed. The final section is an extensive bibliography of over 3000 references that includes not only text references but related references for further reading as well. Page 2 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - PEER REVIEW PRINCIPLES The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA, 1993) requires federal agencies to develop strategic plans, annual performance plans, and performance measures to gauge progress in achieving their planned targets. A precursor paper in Science (Kostoff, 1997b) recommends that peer review be the dominant metric GPRA applies to basic research. However, for research program peer review to be used effectively and efficiently for GPRA, it must be understood, developed, and standardized well beyond its present status. Program peer review should also be integrated seamlessly into an organization's business operations evaluation processes in general, and in particular into its peer review processes. It should not be incorporated into management tools as an afterthought, which is today’s common practice, but should rather be part of the organization's front-end design. This allows optimal matching among requirements for generating, gathering, and reviewing data. It helps avoid the present practice of force-fitting evaluation criteria and processes to whatever data are produced from non-evaluation requirements. This report focuses on the underlying principles necessary for high-quality peer review. Although targeted toward research program peer review, most of the principles this report enunciates apply to many kinds of peer review. The author's experience, based on examining the peer review literature, conducting many peer review experiments (e.g., Kostoff, 1988), and managing hundreds of peer reviews, leads to the following conclusions about the factors critical to high-quality peer review (Kostoff, 1995, 1997a, 2001b): 1) Senior Management Commitment Senior management’s commitment is the most important factor in the quality of an organization’s S&T evaluations. The relevant senior positions are those with evaluation decision authority, and their most significant contributions lie in the rewards and incentives they institute to encourage high-quality evaluation.. Senior managers’ commitment should include not only assurance that a credible need for the evaluation exists, but also a strong desire that the evaluation be structured to address that need as directly and completely as possible. 2) Evaluation Manager Motivation The second most important factor is the operational evaluation manager's motivation to perform a technically credible evaluation. The manager: a) sets the boundary conditions and constraints on the evaluation's scope; b) selects the final specific evaluation techniques used; c) selects the methodologies for how these techniques will be combined, integrated, and interpreted, and d) selects the experts who will perform the interpretation of the data output from these techniques. In particular, if the evaluation manager does not follow, either consciously or unconsciously, the highest standards in selecting these experts, the evaluation's final conclusions could be substantially determined even before the evaluation process even begins. All the evaluation Page 3 processes considered (peer review, retrospective studies, metrics, economic studies, roadmaps, data mining, and text mining) need experts, and this conclusion about expert selection holds for every one of them. 3) Statement of Objectives Third most important is transmission of a clear and unambiguous statement of the review’s objectives (and conduct) and its potential impact and consequences to all participants. This statement should occur at the very beginning of the review process. 4) Competency of Technical Evaluators Fourth most important factor is the quality of the technical evaluators themselves, specifically their role, objectivity, and competency. While the requirements for experts in peer review, retrospective studies, roadmaps, and text mining are obvious, there are equally compelling reasons for using experts in metrics-based evaluations. Metrics should not be used as a stand- alone diagnostic instrument (Kostoff, 1997b). Like lab tests in a medical exam, even quantitative metrics results from suites of instruments require expert interpretation to be placed into proper context and gain credibility. Evaluation resembles diagnosis more than it resembles accounting. The metrics results should make a subordinate contribution to an effective peer review of the technical area being examined. Thus, this fourth critical factor consists of the evaluation experts' competence and objectivity. All the experts should be technically competent in their subject area, and the competence of the total evaluation team should cover the multiple
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lewis Carroll at Play •}'Y It, -Pjf55 Dhhl )')~, I
    CQS€.; RS 3b Lewis Carroll at Play •}'Y It, -PJf55 dhhl )')~, I A Thesis Presented to the Chancellor's Scholars Council of The University ofNorth Carolina at Pembroke In Partial Fulfillment Ofthe Requirements for Completion of The Chancellor's Scholars Program By James Nichols December 4,2001 Faculty Advisor's Approval ~ Faculty Advisor's Approvaldi: Faculty Advisor's APproi :£ Date ~ 296640 Lewis Carroll at Play Chancellor's Scholars Paper Outline I. Introduction A. Popularity ofthe Alice books B. Lewis Carroll background & summary ofAlice books C. Lewis Carroll put Alice books together for insight D. Lewis Carroll incorporated math, logic and games in Through the Looking Glass and Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, which benefits computer scientists and mathematicians. II. Mathematics in Alice books relates to computer science A. Properties 1. Identity 2. Inverses 3. No solution problems (nonsense) 4. Rules not absolute-always an exception B. Symmetry C. Dimensions D. Meaning ofmathematical phrases E. Null class F. Math puzzles 1. Multiplying 2. Alice's running 3. Line puzzle 4. Time 5. Zero-sum game 6. Transformations G. Mathematical puns m. Logic in the Alice books relates to computer science A. Concepts being broken down B. Humpty Dumpty chooses what words mean C. Need for Order D. Alice as a logician E. Logic ofa child F. Don't assume anything G. Symbols N. Games in the Alice books relates to computer science A. Cards B. Chess C. Acrostics D. Doublets E. Syzgies F. Magic Tricks 1. Fan 2. Apple 3. Magic Number G. Mazes H. Carroll's Games V. What Lewis Carroll offers to Computer Science and Mathematics today A.
    [Show full text]
  • THE WATSONVILLE-SANTA CRUZ JACL Newsletter January 2017
    THE WATSONVILLE-SANTA CRUZ JACL Newsletter January 2017 2017, THE “YEAR OF THE COCK” SIRs founders chose the rooster as the official logo to Editor represent the freedom This year, 2017, will prove to be an interesting one, even he displays around the for those who were not born in the Year of the Cock. barnyard. “We have People born in the Year of the Cock consider themselves paid our dues to the to be deep thinkers. They are always busy and devoted to business world and their work. They always want to do more than they are able, now is the time for us to and if they undertake a task strut and crow a little. beyond their abilities, they are We share the dignity of disappointed when they discover retirement with one they are unable to fulfill their another as members of obligation. Cock people are SIRs.” eccentric, and it is this eccentricity The local that prevents them from having Watsonville branch is #85 and meets on the second Tuesday what is known in Japan as of the month for lunch at the VFW Hall in Freedom. Retired “roundness” in their relationships men are welcome to join Norm Haney, Victor Kimura, Jack with others. They always think they Spurlock, Don Yamaguchi, Doug Nakashima and yours are right and that they know what truly. Golfers are most welcome to join. they are doing. They do not trust other people and prefer to do what they like, alone. Their outward attitude and presentation is that of an adventuresome spirit, but inwardly they have little gift for high adventure and are filled with nonsensical plans that never mature.
    [Show full text]
  • Do You Speak Open Science? Resources and Tips to Learn the Language
    Do You Speak Open Science? Resources and Tips to Learn the Language. Paola Masuzzo1, 2 - ORCID: 0000-0003-3699-1195, Lennart Martens1,2 - ORCID: 0000- 0003-4277-658X Author Affiliation 1 Medical Biotechnology Center, VIB, Ghent, Belgium 2 Department of Biochemistry, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium Abstract The internet era, large-scale computing and storage resources, mobile devices, social media, and their high uptake among different groups of people, have all deeply changed the way knowledge is created, communicated, and further deployed. These advances have enabled a radical transformation of the practice of science, which is now more open, more global and collaborative, and closer to society than ever. Open science has therefore become an increasingly important topic. Moreover, as open science is actively pursued by several high-profile funders and institutions, it has fast become a crucial matter to all researchers. However, because this widespread interest in open science has emerged relatively recently, its definition and implementation are constantly shifting and evolving, sometimes leaving researchers in doubt about how to adopt open science, and which are the best practices to follow. This article therefore aims to be a field guide for scientists who want to perform science in the open, offering resources and tips to make open science happen in the four key areas of data, code, publications and peer-review. The Rationale for Open Science: Standing on the Shoulders of Giants One of the most widely used definitions of open science originates from Michael Nielsen [1]: “Open science is the idea that scientific knowledge of all kinds should be openly shared as early as is practical in the discovery process”.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloads Presented on the Abstract Page
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.27.063578; this version posted April 28, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. A systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting Jamie J Kirkham1*, Naomi Penfold2, Fiona Murphy3, Isabelle Boutron4, John PA Ioannidis5, Jessica K Polka2, David Moher6,7 1Centre for Biostatistics, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 2ASAPbio, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3Murphy Mitchell Consulting Ltd. 4Université de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Inserm, Paris, F-75004 France. 5Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) and Departments of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 6Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. 7School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. *Corresponding Author: Professor Jamie Kirkham Centre for Biostatistics Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health The University of Manchester Jean McFarlane Building Oxford Road Manchester, M13 9PL, UK Email: [email protected] Tel: +44 (0)161 275 1135 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.27.063578; this version posted April 28, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
    [Show full text]
  • Peer Review Fails Equity Test Analysis of Submissions to Elife Reveals a Gender Gap in Whom Journals Invite to Do Reviews
    IN FOCUS NEWS Micrograph of yttrium studied images of the The technique could eventually help barium copper oxide, pseudogap. Patterns physicists to understand high-temperature a high-temperature in the images, taken superconductivity, says Allan, although he superconductor. with a scanning cautions that the paper is far from definitive tunnelling micro- and that debate about what the pseudogap is scope, often seem disordered to the human eye will continue. because of the material’s naturally chaotic and The work is an impressive, original fluctuating nature, and noise in the measure- application of machine-learning algorithms to ments. The advantage of machine learning in this type of experimental data, says Tremblay. this situation is that algorithms can learn to But the algorithm can only distinguish recognize patterns that are invisible to people. between the various hypotheses it is given, he says, rather than find entirely new patterns. PATTERN RECOGNITION During her talk, Kim said that work is under To train the algorithms, the team fed neural way to apply the technique to rapidly make networks examples of rippled patterns that sense of data from the X-ray diffraction of corresponded to different theoretical predic- quantum materials — a technique that uses the tions. Having learnt to recognize these exam- scattering of electromagnetic waves to reveal ples, each algorithm applied this learning to a mater ial’s 3D physical structure, but which real data from cuprates in the pseudogap. Over creates patterns so rich that they can take 81 iterations, the algorithms repeatedly identi- months to unravel by conventional means. In fied one modulating pattern that corresponded this case, the AI must draw out similarities and to the particle-like description of electrons, classifications itself, rather than be given pre- which dates back to the 1990s.
    [Show full text]
  • Badges for Sharing Data and Code at an Biostatistics
    F1000Research 2018, 7:90 Last updated: 09 MAR 2018 RESEARCH ARTICLE Badges for sharing data and code at Biostatistics: an observational study [version 2; referees: 2 approved] Anisa Rowhani-Farid , Adrian G. Barnett Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, 4001, Australia v2 First published: 19 Jan 2018, 7:90 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.13477.1) Open Peer Review Latest published: 07 Mar 2018, 7:90 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.13477.2) Referee Status: Abstract Background: The reproducibility policy at the journal Biostatistics rewards articles with badges for data and code sharing. This study investigates the Invited Referees effect of badges at increasing reproducible research. 1 2 Methods: The setting of this observational study is the Biostatistics and Statistics in Medicine (control journal) online research archives. The data consisted of 240 randomly sampled articles from 2006 to 2013 (30 articles per version 2 report report year) per journal. Data analyses included: plotting probability of data and code published sharing by article submission date, and Bayesian logistic regression modelling. 07 Mar 2018 Results: The probability of data sharing was higher at Biostatistics than the control journal but the probability of code sharing was comparable for both version 1 journals. The probability of data sharing increased by 3.9 times (95% credible published report report 19 Jan 2018 interval: 1.5 to 8.44 times, p-value probability that sharing increased: 0.998) after badges were introduced at Biostatistics. On an absolute scale, this difference was only a 7.6% increase in data sharing (95% CI: 2 to 15%, 1 Gustav Nilsonne , Stockholm p-value: 0.998).
    [Show full text]
  • The Origin and Principles of Victorian Nonsense: Darwin's and Lyell's Influence on Lear's Limericks and Carroll's Alice Stories"
    DIPLOMARBEIT / DIPLOMA THESIS Titel der Diplomarbeit / Title of the Diploma Thesis „The Origin and Principles of Victorian Nonsense: Darwin's and Lyell's Influence on Lear's Limericks and Carroll's Alice Stories" verfasst von / submitted by Susanne Schramek angestrebter akademischer Grad / in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Magistra der Philologie (Mag. phil.) Wien, 2018 / Vienna, 2018 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt / A 190 347 344 degree programme code as it appears on the student record sheet: Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt / Lehramtsstudium UniStG, UF Französisch UniStG degree programme as it appears on UF Englisch UniStG the student record sheet: Betreut von / Supervisor: Univ.-Prof. i.R. Dr. Ewald Mengel Mitbetreut von / Co-Supervisor: nicht zutreffend / not applicable Acknowledgements / Danksagung Vielen Dank an Herrn Professor Mengel für die Unterstützung bei der Themenfindung, die verlässlichen und raschen Rückmeldungen und den hilfreichen Input - ich habe mich durchwegs bestens betreut gefühlt. I also want to thank Fionnuala Dillane, whose seminar on literature and science at UCD Dublin inspired me to choose a topic I could not have been happier with. Ganz viel Danke auch an all die lieben Menschen in meiner Welt, die mich offenohriger, zuredender und tanzender Weise durch diese Zeit begleitet haben. Besonders danke ich meiner Familie: Mama und Papa, ich kann gar nicht ausdrücken, wie dankbar ich bin, dass ihr mich über all die Jahre in allem, was mir wichtig war, unterstützt, mir immer Halt gegeben und mich mit eurem Vertrauen angesteckt habt, dass schon alles gut so ist, wie es kommt und wie ich meinen Weg gehe. Und Fan, vielen herzlichen Buuh fürs gemeinsame Freuen über jeden Lustifortschritt und für die wohldosierte Ablenkung zwischendurch mit diversen Lustinarien.
    [Show full text]
  • Theological Education Volume 40, Number 1 ISSUE FOCUS 2004 New Directions for the Timeless Quest— Theological Libraries in an Era of Change
    Theological Education Volume 40, Number 1 ISSUE FOCUS 2004 New Directions for the Timeless Quest— Theological Libraries in an Era of Change What’s a Seminary Library for? Timothy D. Lincoln Jam To-morrow and Jam Yesterday, but Never Jam To-day: The Dilemma of Theology Libraries Planning for the Twenty-first Century Jack W. Ammerman Changing Libraries, Changing Collections Donald M. Vorp Is There Anything Worthwhile on the Web? A Cooperative Project to Identify Scholarly Resources in Theology and Religion Eileen Crawford, Amy Limpitlaw, and Bill Hook Incorporating Global Perspectives into Theological Education: The Role of the Library Martha Lund Smalley and Paul F. Stuehrenberg Librarians and Teaching Faculty in Collaboration: New Incentives, New Opportunities Melody Layton McMahon Is There a Strategic Alliance in Your Future? Lessons Learned from Library Consortia Ann Hotta Information Literacy in Theological Education Douglas L. Gragg Assessing Library Performance in a New Landscape, or “How Did We Do Today?” Jan Malcheski BOOK REVIEWS OPEN FORUM Reducing the Identity Crisis in Doctor of Ministry Education Charles J. Conniry Jr. Getting Them Through the Doctor of Ministry Dissertation Steve Delamarter Thinking Again about the Reformed Tradition and Public Life Mark Douglas, Lewis Mudge, and Jim Watkins The Association of Theological Schools IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA ISSN 0040-5620 Theological Education is published semiannually by The Association of Theological Schools IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA 10 Summit Park Drive Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15275-1103 DANIEL O. ALESHIRE Executive Editor JEREMIAH J. McCARTHY Editor DAVID R. STEWART Issue Editor NANCY MERRILL Managing Editor LISA KERN Production Assistant For subscription information or to order additional copies or selected back issues, please contact the Association.
    [Show full text]
  • Peerj – a Case Study in Improving Research Collaboration at the Journal Level
    Information Services & Use 33 (2013) 251–255 251 DOI 10.3233/ISU-130714 IOS Press PeerJ – A case study in improving research collaboration at the journal level Peter Binfield PeerJ, P.O. Box 614, Corte Madera, CA 94976, USA E-mail: PeterBinfi[email protected] Abstract. PeerJ Inc. is the Open Access publisher of PeerJ (a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal) and PeerJ PrePrints (an un-peer-reviewed or collaboratively reviewed preprint server), both serving the biological, medical and health sciences. The Editorial Criteria of PeerJ (the journal) are similar to those of PLOS ONE in that all submissions are judged only on their scientific and methodological soundness (not on subjective determinations of impact, or degree of advance). PeerJ’s peer-review process is managed by an Editorial Board of 800 and an Advisory Board of 20 (including 5 Nobel Laureates). Editor listings by subject area are at: https://peerj.com/academic-boards/subjects/ and the Advisory Board is at: https://peerj.com/academic- boards/advisors/. In the context of Understanding Research Collaboration, there are several unique aspects of the PeerJ set-up which will be of interest to readers of this special issue. Keywords: Open access, peer reviewed 1. Introduction PeerJ is based in San Francisco and London, and was launched in 2012 by Co-Founders Jason Hoyt (previously of Mendeley) and Peter Binfield (previously of PLOS ONE). PeerJ Inc. has been financed by Venture Capital investment from O’Reilly Media and OATV and Tim O’Reilly is on the Governing Board. PeerJ is a full member of CrossRef, OASPA (the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association) and COPE (the Committee on Publication Ethics).
    [Show full text]
  • Never Jam To-Day: on the Impossibility of Takings Jurisprudence Jeanne L
    Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law LARC @ Cardozo Law Articles Faculty 1996 Never Jam To-day: On the Impossibility of Takings Jurisprudence Jeanne L. Schroeder Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jeanne L. Schroeder, Never Jam To-day: On the Impossibility of Takings Jurisprudence, 84 Georgetown Law Journal 1531 (1996). Available at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles/390 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty at LARC @ Cardozo Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of LARC @ Cardozo Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. ARTICLES Never Jam To-day: On the Impossibility of Takings Jurisprudence JEANNE L. SCHROEDER* "I'm sure I'll take you with pleasure!" the Queen said. "Twopence a week, and jam every other day." Alice couldn't help laughing, as she said, "I don't want you to hire me-and I don't care for jam." "It's very good jam," said the Queen. "Well, I don't want any to-day, at any rate." "You couldn't have it if you did want it," the Queen said. "The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday-but never jam to-day." "It must come sometimes to 'jam to-day,' "Alice objected. "No, it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every other day: to-day isn't any other day, you know." "I don't understand you,'' said Alice.
    [Show full text]
  • Ranking-Games.Pdf
    Evaluation Review http://erx.sagepub.com/ Ranking Games Margit Osterloh and Bruno S. Frey Eval Rev published online 4 August 2014 DOI: 10.1177/0193841X14524957 The online version of this article can be found at: http://erx.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/08/04/0193841X14524957 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for Evaluation Review can be found at: Email Alerts: http://erx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://erx.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://erx.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/08/04/0193841X14524957.refs.html >> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Aug 21, 2014 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Aug 4, 2014 What is This? Downloaded from erx.sagepub.com at UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zuerich on August 27, 2014 Article Evaluation Review 1-28 ª The Author(s) 2014 Ranking Games Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0193841X14524957 erx.sagepub.com Margit Osterloh1,2 and Bruno S. Frey1,2 Abstract Background: Research rankings based on bibliometrics today dominate governance in academia and determine careers in universities. Method: Analytical approach to capture the incentives by users of rankings and by suppliers of rankings, both on an individual and an aggregate level. Result: Rankings may produce unintended negative side effects. In particular, rankings substitute the ‘‘taste for science’’ by a ‘‘taste for publication.’’ We show that the usefulness of rankings rests on several important assumptions challenged by recent research. Conclusion: We suggest as alternatives careful socialization and selection of scholars, supplemented by periodic self-evaluations and awards.
    [Show full text]
  • Web of Science (Wos) and Scopus: the Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today's Academic World
    publications Review Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World Raminta Pranckute˙ Scientific Information Department, Library, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio˙ Ave. 14, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania; [email protected] Abstract: Nowadays, the importance of bibliographic databases (DBs) has increased enormously, as they are the main providers of publication metadata and bibliometric indicators universally used both for research assessment practices and for performing daily tasks. Because the reliability of these tasks firstly depends on the data source, all users of the DBs should be able to choose the most suitable one. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus are the two main bibliographic DBs. The comprehensive evaluation of the DBs’ coverage is practically impossible without extensive bibliometric analyses or literature reviews, but most DBs users do not have bibliometric competence and/or are not willing to invest additional time for such evaluations. Apart from that, the convenience of the DB’s interface, performance, provided impact indicators and additional tools may also influence the users’ choice. The main goal of this work is to provide all of the potential users with an all-inclusive description of the two main bibliographic DBs by gathering the findings that are presented in the most recent literature and information provided by the owners of the DBs at one place. This overview should aid all stakeholders employing publication and citation data in selecting the most suitable DB. Keywords: WoS; Scopus; bibliographic databases; comparison; content coverage; evaluation; citation impact indicators Citation: Pranckute,˙ R. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans 1.
    [Show full text]