Existing processes for academic peer review can yield unnecessarily harsh critiques that focus on any vulnerability rather than constructive feedback to improve the work. Efforts to improve the peer-review process recommend training at the graduate level. This article describes the Modified Critical Response Process (MCRP) as a means to achieve…

The purpose of the traditional peer review process (TPR) is to provide a more constructive and scientifically rigorous critical review of scholarly research that builds scientific rigor and validity within diverse academic disciplines. Peer review has received criticism as the demand for publications in a variety of competitive journals has…

A critical debate has blossomed within the field of research policy, science and technology studies, and philosophy of science regarding the possible benefits and limitations of allocating extramural grants using a lottery system. The most common view among those supporting the lottery idea is that some form of modified lottery is acceptable, if…

The claim has been made for decades that college teaching, like research, should be peer reviewed if we are to see it as a serious scholarly activity; yet peer review as a method of evaluating teaching is not widespread. Interest in peer review is increasing, however, as institutions have sought ways of evaluating teaching informed by professional…

There is a general tension between the individualised nature of current assessment practices in higher education and a collaborative approach to learning. This results in many dilemmas for educators as they try to balance academic integrity concerns and student preferences with social or collaborative assessment practices, including peer…

This chapter explores the use of peer review as a method for evaluating teaching, examining its role in both online and on-campus courses as well as its importance in the promotion and tenure process. It also considers the benefits and challenges of using peer review as a form of evaluation.

There has been a recent increase in attention toward the proper targets of evaluation in science funding policy. Specifically, some claim that we should 'fund people, not projects' to allow for increased autonomy for researchers. Critics argue that this movement unduly opens room for biases against several marginalized groups of scientists. In…

Despite the surging interest in introducing lottery mechanisms into decision-making procedures for science funding bodies, the discourse on funding-by-lottery remains underdeveloped and, at times, misleading. Funding-by-lottery is sometimes presented as if it were a single mechanism when, in reality, there are many funding-by-lottery mechanisms…

In this essay, I explore some of the insights provided in a set of three manuscripts that focus on centering equity in peer review, authored by Bancroft, Ryoo and Miles, Nkrumah and Mutegi, and Marshall and Salter. I consider various aspects of their arguments, highlighting implications for the procedures and norms of journals and funding…

Journal manuscripts are peer reviewed with the hopes that the peer review will facilitate an editor's decision regarding the disposition of the article and that the feedback will be helpful to the authors in improving their manuscript. However peer reviews may not achieve these goals if they lack sufficient analysis and feedback. This article…

Gendered bias in peer-review and other forms of assessments is a well-studied area. But how do researchers actually execute their positions of power in recruitment processes? In Sweden, recruitment for academic tenure and the reviewers' reports are public and thus open for scrutiny. This study uses both bibliographic coupling and close reading of…

Scientific writing is a rewarding, challenging, and necessary part of research. Building skills in scientific writing is critical in graduate student training and provides the foundation for scientific communication at all professional levels. Despite the importance of writing in research, this skill remains a barrier to success for many students.…

The way research is, and should be, funded by the public sphere is the subject of renewed interest for sociology, economics, management sciences, and more recently, for the philosophy of science. In this contribution, I propose a qualitative, epistemological criticism of the funding by lottery model, which is advocated by a growing number of…

In the current higher education landscape, universities are facing expanding requirements beyond teaching and research. Evaluation methods must evolve accordingly to prevent universities from facing development dilemmas. Current mainstream evaluation methods primarily emphasize the research domain, often failing to holistically capture a…

This article assesses the risk of two COVID-19-related changes necessary for the expert review of the REF2021's Impact criterion: the move from face to face (F2F) to virtual deliberation; and the changing research landscape caused by the COVID-19 crisis requiring an extension of deadlines, and accommodation of COVID-19-related mitigation. Peer…