Peer Review

Thomson Reuters (formerly the Institute of Scientific Information or ISI, which I will use for short) recently released the 2009 impact data for journals in psychology, and I have found myself reading many messages about them from various correspondents. The 2009 journal impact factor (IF) is the mean number of More

Peer review at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is getting an in-depth look, with the official goal of “optimizing its efficiency and effectiveness, and to ensure that the NIH will be able to continue to meet the needs of the research community and public-at-large.” Whether this effort translates into More

A Dissident View ‘How Can One Budget for a Discovery?’ Excerpted from: “Peer Review: The Holy Office of Modern Science,” by Maciej Henneberg, Natural Science, February 20, 1997. “The peer review of grants has its origin in industrial practice. Many people propose to do many things but resources are limited. More

It’s burdensome, it’s time-devouring, it plays havoc with your life and your research, it stifles innovation, it over-values flaws and undervalues potential, and the pay is somewhere between paltry and nonexistent. Why in the world would anyone, let alone our nation’s most successful scientists, subject themselves to anything like that More

If they act by October 1, psychologists have a chance to influence a series of changes in peer review procedures that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) plans to try out in the 1997 fiscal year and implement in FY 1998. (Readers can check out the NIH web page (hup:// More