Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices

Research Evaluation

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 48-60

  Luukkonen, Terttu ^a  

^a Elinkeinoelaman Tutkimuslaitos   (Finland)

Author keywords

Groundbreaking research; Peer review; Research funding; The ERC

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863837903     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: 14715449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvs001     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Braben, D. W. (2004) Pioneering Research: A risk worth taking. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Interscience.
2. Chubin, D. E. and Hackett, E. J. (1990) Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
3. Cole, S., Cole, J.R. and Simon, G.A. (1981) 'Chance and Consensus in Peer Review', Science, 214: 881-885.
4. Grant, J. and Allen, L. (1999) 'Evaluating High Risk research: an Assessment of the Wellcome Trust's Sir Henry Wellcome Commemorative Awards for Innovative Research', Research Evaluation, 8: 201-204.
5. Hacking, I. (1985) 'Styles of Reasoning'. In: Rajchman, J. and West, C. (eds) Post-Analytic Philosophy, pp. 145-165. New York: Columbia University Press.
6. Heinze, T. (2008) 'How to Sponsor Ground-Breaking Research: a Comparison of Funding Schemes', Science & Public Policy, 35: 302-318.
7. Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Rogers, J. D. and Senker, J. M. (2009) 'Organizational and Institutional Influences on Creativity in Scientific Research', Research Policy, 38: 610-623.
8. Huutoniemi, K. (2010) 'Evaluating Interdisciplinary Research'. In: Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T. and Mitcham, C. (eds) Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, pp. 309-320. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Frontier Research: The European Challenge. (2005) High-Level Expert Group Report. Brussels: European Commission.
10. Knorr, C. K. (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11. Kuhn, T. S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolution, 2nd edn, Enlarged, International Encyclopaedia of Unified Science, Vol. 2, Nr 2. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
12. Kusch, M. (1991) Foucault's Strata and Fields. An Investigation into Archaeological and Genealogical Science Studies. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
13. Lamont, M. (2009) How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14. Lamont, M. and Huutoniemi, K. (2011) 'Comparing Customary Rules of Fairness: Evidence of Evaluative Practices in Peer Review Panels. Peer Review Practices and Risk-taking in Funding Path-breaking Research'. Stockholm, Sweden: Research Workshop, 1 April 2011.
15. Langfeldt, L. (2001) 'The Decision-Making Constraints and Processes of Grant Peer Review, and their Effects on the Review Outcomes', Social Studies of Science, 31/6: 820-841.
16. Langfeldt, L. (2006) 'The Policy Challenges of Peer Review: Managing Bias, Conflict of Interests and Interdisciplinary Assessments', Research Evaluation, 15/1: 31-41.
17. Langfeldt, L. and Kyvik, S. (2010) 'Researchers as Evaluators: Tasks, Tensions and Politics', Higher Education, published online 7 October 2010.
18. Laudan, L. (1977) Progress and Its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. London and Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
19. Laudel, G. (2006) 'The Art of Getting Funded: how Scientists Adapt to their Funding Conditions', Science and Public Policy, 33/7: 489-504.
20. Luukkonen, T. (2010) 'The European Research Council in the European Research Area', http://www.eurecia-erc.net/resource-centre/official-documents/ accessed 27 January 2012.
21. Nedeva, M. (2011) 'Selection Practices of Research Funding Organisations and Path-Breaking Research - Towards a Comparison', Manuscript.
22. OECD. (2010) The Impacts of Nanotechnology on Companies, Policy Insights from Case Studies. Paris: OECD.
23. Toulmin, S. (1972) Human Understanding, Vol. 1, General Introduction and Part I, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
24. Travis, G.D.L. and Collins, H.M. (1991) 'New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System', Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16/3: 322-341.