Independent review: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Filling in 6 references using Reflinks |
DoctorKubla (talk | contribs) Redirecting to peer review – there was a strong consensus on the talk page, and here, to merge these articles, but I can't see anything worth merging that isn't already covered in the target article |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | |||
{{For|the title of several magazines, journals and newspapers|Independent Review}} |
|||
{{Merge|Peer review|date=August 2010}} |
|||
'''Independent review''' is the practice of having an expert, but independent evaluation of a set of results or artifacts produced by an author or organization.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=2iqA_GOL3ssC&pg=PA36 |title=Navigation engineering practice and ethical standards - William H. McAnally, Coasts, Oceans, Ports and Rivers Institute (American Society of Civil Engineers) - Google Boeken |publisher=Books.google.com |date=2009-05-31 |accessdate=2012-03-21}}</ref> The practice appears in a large number of fields, including [[science]], [[engineering]], [[public policy]], [[finance]], [[medical practice]], etc. In science, the term is often used synonymously with [[peer review]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=VZ1axrolCpkC&pg=PA219 |title=Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation And the Distortion of Scientific ... - Rena Steinzor - Google Boeken |publisher=Books.google.com |date=2006-07-24 |accessdate=2012-03-21}}</ref> The term is sometimes used to contrast it with an "in-house review" performed by someone inside an organization.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=SmwXC0nU2pYC&pg=PA12099&dq=independent+in-house+review&hl=en&ei=fm7CTJiKGNGz4QamouW5Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=independent%20in-house%20review&f=false |title=Congressional Record, V. 145, Pt. 9, June 9, 1999 to June 17, 1999 - Congress - Google Books |publisher=Books.google.com |date= |accessdate=2012-03-21}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=43AqAAAAMAAJ&q=independent+in-house+review&dq=independent+in-house+review&hl=en&ei=Um_CTKiiIs2-4gbe8cy5Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAzge |title=Science - American Association for the Advancement of Science, HighWire Press, JSTOR (Organization) - Google Books |publisher=Books.google.com |date= |accessdate=2012-03-21}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=vWtXEohjy5cC&pg=PA31 |title=Design and construction of urban stormwater management systems - Google Boeken |publisher=Books.google.com |date= |accessdate=2012-03-21}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=8GHY2cJcyNQC&pg=PA97 |title=How to Succeed in Writing a Book - Ruth Chambers - Google Boeken |publisher=Books.google.com |date= |accessdate=2012-03-21}}</ref> |
|||
==Academic publishing== |
|||
When scientific papers are considered for publication in [[scientific journal]]s, there are generally submitted to [[peer review]] first. Often this is done in confidence (see [[anonymous peer review]]). |
|||
Sometimes researchers will bypass the pre-publication review process (see "[[science by press conference]]") or will refuse to share their data and methods with other scientists. In general, the [[scientific community]] frowns on this, as it makes it difficult or even impossible for other scientists to verify the data and interpretations of the research (see [[data sharing]]). |
|||
==Medical practice== |
|||
{{main|Medical peer review|Physician peer review}} |
|||
An article in ''Physician's News Digest'' says that there's a need for independent review, because hospital peer review process is broken.<ref>[http://www.physiciansnews.com/business/906freedman.html Independent review organizations for peer review]</ref> |
|||
==Conflicts of interest== |
|||
It is considered common knowledge that financial interests affect research results, and many people believe that funding can influence a scientist's findings. In the well known tobacco industry case, manufacturers funded studies seeming to prove that tobacco smoking was harmless. Scientists whose funding did not come from tobacco companies eventually proved a link between [[smoking and cancer]]. |
|||
The British Medical Journal reported that, "Systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC156458/ BMJ. 31 May 2003; 326(7400): 1167.]</ref> |
|||
== Science == |
|||
Independent review of scientific results is the cornerstone of scientific accountability (see also [[peer review]]). By giving other scientists access to one's own data and methods (see [[data sharing]]), and giving them an opportunity to gauge the [[reproducibility]] of one's results, one ensures that errors due to incompetence, unconscious bias, or other causes can be found by others. It's the scientific version of [[proofreading]]. |
|||
Another possible reason for bypassing traditional peer review is when reporting results which are radically at odds with mainstream scientific views. |
|||
==Government agencies in the USA== |
|||
The [[Office of Research Integrity]] employs independent reviewers to guard against [[scientific misconduct]].<ref>[http://ori.hhs.gov/research/intra/documents/gallup_finalreport.pdf Final Report: Observing and Reporting Suspected Misconduct in Biomedical Research]</ref> |
|||
The state of [[California]] uses independent review to evaluate [[conservation movement|conservation]] proposals and to ensure that the general public can understand scientific publications written in mind-numbingly foggy technical prose. |
|||
* ... California law, which requires independent scientific review at several stages of the conservation planning process, “so consultants working for counties or developers are not able to get away with using flawed scientific methodologies.” The published reports of such independent reviews can help the public navigate an otherwise impenetrable, seemingly arcane debate.<ref name=plos>[http://www.plos.org/cms/node/235 PLOS]</ref> |
|||
==See also== |
|||
* [[Independent medical review]] |
|||
* [[Judicial review]] |
|||
* [[United States Office of the Independent Counsel]] |
|||
==References== |
|||
<references /> |
|||
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2010}} |
|||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Independent Review}} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
[[Category:Academic publishing]] |
|||
[[ru:Экспертное оценивание]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 15:25, 18 March 2013
Redirect to: