Alert:

Limited Availability of Full-Text Documents. Click here for more information, or here to request the return of a PDF online.

EJ980246 - Criteria for Assessing Quality in Academic Research: The Views of Biomedical Scientists, Clinical Scientists and Social Scientists

Help

Tutorial

Help |

Tutorial

Help |

Tutorial

Help With This Page

Back to Search Results Help Permalink Share this record

More Info:
Help 0 items in My Clipboard | Add record to My Clipboard

Record Details

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text | More Info:
Help Find in a Library | Publisher's website

Related Items: Show Related Items

Click on any of the links below to perform a new search
ERIC #:	EJ980246
Title:	Criteria for Assessing Quality in Academic Research: The Views of Biomedical Scientists, Clinical Scientists and Social Scientists
Authors:	Albert, Mathieu; Laberge, Suzanne; McGuire, Wendy
Descriptors:	Evaluation Criteria; Scientific Research; Quality Control; Peer Evaluation; College Faculty; Biomedicine; Scientists; Social Scientists; Attitudes; Foreign Countries
Source:	Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, v64 n5 p661-676 Nov 2012
More Info: Help Peer Reviewed:	Yes
Publisher:	Springer. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: service-ny@springer.com; Web site: http://www.springerlink.com
Publication Date:	2012-11-00
Pages:	16
Pub Types:	Journal Articles; Reports - Research
Abstract:	This study empirically addresses the claim made by Gibbons et al ("The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies." Sage, Thousand Oaks, 1994) that a novel form of quality control (associated with Mode 2 knowledge production) is supplementing the "traditional" peer-review process (associated with Mode 1 knowledge production). A qualitative design was used to explore faculty members' views on the criteria for assessing scientific research. Ninety-four semi-structured interviews were conducted with biomedical scientists, clinical scientists, and social scientists working in Canadian universities. Results show that the vast majority of participants are aligned with the "traditional" Mode 1 peer-reviewed procedures for assessing research and defining scientific excellence. These participants asserted that peer review is the best quality control mechanism for assessing scientific research, and peer recognition the key attribute for legitimacy in the academic arena. In contrast, participants ascribed a low value to non-academics' judgment of their work. While the study findings do not provide support Gibbons et al.'s claim, they add to a growing body of evidence that supports the continuing importance of peer review in academic career success.
Abstractor:	As Provided
Reference Count:	42

Note:	N/A
Identifiers:	Canada
Record Type:	Journal
Level:	N/A
Institutions:	N/A
Sponsors:	N/A
ISBN:	N/A
ISSN:	ISSN-0018-1560
Audiences:	N/A
Languages:	English
Education Level:	Higher Education; Postsecondary Education
Direct Link:	http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9519-2

Back to Search Results