Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Exploring the degree of delegated authority for...

Research

Associated organisational unit

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Exploring the degree of delegated authority for the peer review of societal impact

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Exploring the degree of delegated authority for the peer review of societal impact. / Derrick, Gemma Elizabeth; Samuel, Samuel.
In: Science and Public Policy, Vol. 45, No. 5, 01.10.2018, p. 673-682.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Derrick, GE & Samuel, S 2018, 'Exploring the degree of delegated authority for the peer review of societal impact', Science and Public Policy, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 673-682. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scx091

APA

Derrick, G. E., & Samuel, S. (2018). Exploring the degree of delegated authority for the peer review of societal impact. Science and Public Policy, 45(5), 673-682. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scx091

Vancouver

Derrick GE, Samuel S. Exploring the degree of delegated authority for the peer review of societal impact. Science and Public Policy. 2018 Oct 1;45(5):673-682. Epub 2018 Jan 22. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scx091

Author

Derrick, Gemma Elizabeth ; Samuel, Samuel. / Exploring the degree of delegated authority for the peer review of societal impact. In: Science and Public Policy. 2018 ; Vol. 45, No. 5. pp. 673-682.

Bibtex

@article{bf2eb95b45994e449f8fdb22b1642268,
title = "Exploring the degree of delegated authority for the peer review of societal impact",
abstract = "This article explores how panel expert reviewers{\textquoteright} evaluative practice was influenced by external, political considerations during the assessment of a societal impact criterion. The results showed that prior to the evaluation process, participants demonstrated a strong preconceived, political belief that the results of the evaluation process must {\textquoteleft}showcase{\textquoteright} the value of British research to the public and policymakers as part of a rationale designed to ensure continued public-based research funding. Post-evaluation interviews revealed how, during the societal impact assessment, evaluators drew on these strong beliefs which informed a group-based strategy of {\textquoteleft}generous marking{\textquoteright} of submissions. We discuss the implications of external motivations that influence the direction of research audit exercises where the definition of the criteria is untested, unclear, and unfamiliar to evaluators, as well as discuss the suitability of peer review as an evaluation tool. Both have implications for the future legitimacy of impact assessment as a formalized criterion.",
author = "Derrick, {Gemma Elizabeth} and Samuel Samuel",
year = "2018",
month = oct,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/scipol/scx091",
language = "English",
volume = "45",
pages = "673--682",
journal = "Science and Public Policy",
issn = "0302-3427",
publisher = "Beech Tree Publishing",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exploring the degree of delegated authority for the peer review of societal impact

AU - Derrick, Gemma Elizabeth

AU - Samuel, Samuel

PY - 2018/10/1

Y1 - 2018/10/1

N2 - This article explores how panel expert reviewers’ evaluative practice was influenced by external, political considerations during the assessment of a societal impact criterion. The results showed that prior to the evaluation process, participants demonstrated a strong preconceived, political belief that the results of the evaluation process must ‘showcase’ the value of British research to the public and policymakers as part of a rationale designed to ensure continued public-based research funding. Post-evaluation interviews revealed how, during the societal impact assessment, evaluators drew on these strong beliefs which informed a group-based strategy of ‘generous marking’ of submissions. We discuss the implications of external motivations that influence the direction of research audit exercises where the definition of the criteria is untested, unclear, and unfamiliar to evaluators, as well as discuss the suitability of peer review as an evaluation tool. Both have implications for the future legitimacy of impact assessment as a formalized criterion.

AB - This article explores how panel expert reviewers’ evaluative practice was influenced by external, political considerations during the assessment of a societal impact criterion. The results showed that prior to the evaluation process, participants demonstrated a strong preconceived, political belief that the results of the evaluation process must ‘showcase’ the value of British research to the public and policymakers as part of a rationale designed to ensure continued public-based research funding. Post-evaluation interviews revealed how, during the societal impact assessment, evaluators drew on these strong beliefs which informed a group-based strategy of ‘generous marking’ of submissions. We discuss the implications of external motivations that influence the direction of research audit exercises where the definition of the criteria is untested, unclear, and unfamiliar to evaluators, as well as discuss the suitability of peer review as an evaluation tool. Both have implications for the future legitimacy of impact assessment as a formalized criterion.

U2 - 10.1093/scipol/scx091

DO - 10.1093/scipol/scx091

M3 - Journal article

VL - 45

SP - 673

EP - 682

JO - Science and Public Policy

JF - Science and Public Policy

SN - 0302-3427

IS - 5

ER -