A Critical Appraisal of the Peer Review Performance of the SDGs in Nigeria and Ghana (2015-2019)

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela Chiamaka Uzoma ◽  
Kester Onor
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Critical Appraisal

Where Are The Self-Correcting Mechanisms In Science?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simine Vazire ◽  
Alex O. Holcombe
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Scientific Field ◽  
The Self ◽  
Replication Crisis

It is often said that science is self-correcting, but the replication crisis suggests that, at least in some fields, self-correction mechanisms have fallen short of what we might hope for. How can we know whether a particular scientific field has effective self-correction mechanisms, that is, whether its findings are credible? The usual processes that supposedly provide mechanisms for scientific self-correction – mainly peer review and disciplinary committees – have been inadequate. We argue for more verifiable indicators of a field’s commitment to self-correction. These include transparency, which is already a target of many reform efforts, and critical appraisal, which has received less attention. Only by obtaining Measurements of Observable Self-Correction (MOSCs) can we begin to evaluate the claim that “science is self-correcting.” We expect the validity of this claim to vary across fields and subfields, and suggest that some fields, such as psychology and biomedicine, fall far short of an appropriate level of transparency and, especially, critical appraisal. Fields without robust, verifiable mechanisms for transparency and critical appraisal cannot reasonably be said to be self-correcting, and thus do not warrant the credibility often imputed to science as a whole.

scholarly journals Rapid Evidence Review 1 on the Critical Appraisal of Third-Party Evidence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandy Thomas ◽  
Peter Gregory ◽  
Sarah O’Brien ◽  
Catriona McCallion ◽  
Ben Goodall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Communication ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Food Standards ◽  
Scientific Principles ◽  
Evidence Review ◽  
Proper Context

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) always seeks to ensure that itsrecommendations are made on the best-available evidence. Following a request from the FSA Chair, the Science Council have sought to provide a framework that can guide those seeking to submit uncommissioned evidence to the FSA on its scientific principles and standards.The Science Councils proposed framework is based on the principles of quality, trustand robustness. By being transparent about the FSA’s minimal expectations, we aim to help those who wish to submit evidence, typically in an effort to fill a perceived evidence gap orchange a relevant policy or legislation. The framework also seeks to provides assurance to others on the processes in place within the FSA to assess evidence it receives.When the FSA receives evidence, it will: be transparent about how the evidence is assessed and used to develop its evidence base, policy recommendations and risk communication; assess evidence in its proper context using the principles of quality, trust and robustness; seek to minimise bias in its assessments of evidence by using professional protocols, its SACs, peer review and/or multi-disciplinary teams be open and transparent about the conclusions it has reached about any evidence submitted to it.

Where are the Self-Correcting Mechanisms in Science?

2021 ◽  
pp. 108926802110339
Author(s):  
Simine Vazire ◽  
Alex O. Holcombe
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Scientific Field ◽  
The Self ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Correction Indicators

It is often said that science is self-correcting, but the replication crisis suggests that self-correction mechanisms have fallen short. How can we know whether a particular scientific field has effective self-correction mechanisms, that is, whether its findings are credible? The usual processes that supposedly provide mechanisms for scientific self-correction, such as journal-based peer review and institutional committees, have been inadequate. We describe more verifiable indicators of a field’s commitment to self-correction. These fall under the broad headings of 1) transparency, which is already the subject of many reform efforts and 2) critical appraisal, which has received less attention and which we focus on here. Only by obtaining Observable Self-Correction Indicators (OSCIs) can we begin to evaluate the claim that “science is self-correcting.” We expect that the veracity of this claim varies across fields and subfields, and suggest that some fields, such as psychology and biomedicine, fall far short of an appropriate level of transparency and, especially, critical appraisal. Fields without robust, verifiable mechanisms for transparency and critical appraisal cannot reasonably be said to be self-correcting, and thus do not warrant the credibility often imputed to science as a whole.

935: Critical Appraisal of the Role of Ureteroscopy in Treatment of Pediatric Renal and Ureteric Calculi

2007 ◽  
Vol 177 (4S) ◽  
pp. 310-310
Author(s):  
Sumit Dave ◽  
Luis H. Braga ◽  
Antoine E. Khoury ◽  
Walid A. Farhat
Keyword(s):  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Ureteric Calculi
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document