- Database of practice
- Research: Publishing it, Reviewing it and How the Public Views it
Research: Publishing it, Reviewing it and How the Public Views it
- University of Cambridge
- East of England
- Date first submitted:
- 25 Nov 2009
- Date last modified:
- 26 Nov 2009
- Research project skills
- Academic practice
- Knowledge exchange
- Career development
- Postgraduate researchers
- Doctoral researchers
Rationale, aims and outcomes
What is the rationale for doing this?
How does it fit with institutional strategy?
What are the main features of the provision?
What are the aims and expected outcomes?
Understanding how the peer review process work is essential for early career researchers. The outcomes of peer review will have a real impact on the careers of researchers. The majority of research at our institution is funded by the public and it is important to us that the public can have confidence in the robustness of scientific findings published in peer review journals.
The aims of this session was that participants would have a better understanding of the peer review process of peer review of journals and grants and have a critical view on the challenges and weaknesses of the peer review system.
Are there any pre-requisites for engagement, e.g. levels of skill, years of experience, essential pre-activities?
How many participate in each 'activity'?
The session was open to all life science postdocs and PhD students. 116 researchers attended.
Evaluation: benefits, challenges and next steps
How do you monitor effectiveness?
Who do you seek feedback from?
Do you have benchmarks?
The benefits are to allow early career researcher to have a chance to unpick the process of peer review with a range of experts and debate how it could be improved. The fact that peer review was explored from many viewpoints allows researchers to better understand the role of reviewers, editors and journalists. All panellists appreciated the chance to hear the views and concerns of our early career researchers.
The challenges are helping researchers sustain the debate about peer review. This is something we encourage PIs to engage in the discussion with their researchers.
This session was stand alone but was audio recorded and can be accessed from our website. This session links very well to institutional objectives of academic rigour and the efforts that the University makes to present research finding to the public.