Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Peer review and innovation.

Raymond E Spier1

  • 1School of Biomedical and Life Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, United Kingdom. r.spier@surrey.ac.uk

Science and Engineering Ethics
|February 14, 2002
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

On dealing with the innovations of the future.

Science and engineering ethics·2015
Same author

Science and Engineering Ethics enters its third decade.

Science and engineering ethics·2014
Same author

What is excellent science and how does it relate to what we publish in vaccine?

Vaccine·2013
Same author

On cheating.

Science and engineering ethics·2013
Same author

On the use of the concept of "fairness" in ethics.

Science and engineering ethics·2012
Same author

"Dual use" and "intentionality": seeking to prevent the manifestation of deliberately harmful objectives: A summary and some reflections on 'The Advancement of Science and the Dilemma of Dual Use: Why We Can't Afford to Fail'.

Science and engineering ethics·2009
Same journal

Not Another Grocery List: Proposals for an Effective AI Ethics Implementation.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same journal

From Biopiracy to Sustainable Knowledge Governance: Epistemic Justice and the Reconstruction of Resource Sovereignty in the Global South.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same journal

Deliberative Lab Communication and the Practice of Ethical Science.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same journal

Graduate Students Find Content of Responsible Conduct of Research Coursework Useful.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same journal

Discursive Ethics as a Normative Foundation for Integrating Ethics into AI Clinical Decision Support Systems.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same journal

Tragedies of Technology: An Exploration of Such Narratives.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
See all related articles

Peer review in scientific publishing and grant funding can hinder radical innovation. Alternative methods, like prize nominations, are needed to fund groundbreaking research and foster scientific advancement.

Area of Science:

  • Scientific communication
  • Research funding
  • Innovation management

Background:

  • Peer review is crucial for journal publication and grant allocation.
  • The current peer review system may exhibit conservatism, potentially stifling groundbreaking research.
  • Rejection of research papers by journals can delay, but not necessarily prevent, their eventual publication.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze the impact of peer review on scientific innovation.
  • To identify limitations of peer review in funding novel research.
  • To propose alternative mechanisms for fostering research innovation.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of the peer review process in journal publication.
  • Examination of grant application assessment procedures.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Discussion of alternative funding models for innovative research.

    • Main Results:

    • Peer review can be a barrier to the acceptance of highly innovative research papers.
    • Grant allocation via peer review may favor conservative research proposals.
    • Alternative methods are suggested for allocating a portion of research funds to promote innovation.

    Conclusions:

    • The traditional peer review system may not be optimal for identifying and funding truly innovative research.
    • A portion of research funding (10-20%) should be allocated through alternative mechanisms.
    • Prize nominations and targeted funding are potential strategies to encourage scientific breakthroughs.