This definition comes from:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/#EandE
20 Jan 2005
Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition
Filed under:
Climate Science
Paleoclimate
Sun-earth connections
Instrumental Record— group @ 12:37 pm - ()
by Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt
On this site we emphasize conclusions that are supported by "peer-reviewed" climate research. That is, research that has been published by one or more scientists in a scholarly scientific journal after review by one or more experts in the scientists' same field ('peers') for accuracy and validity. What is so important about "Peer Review"? As Chris Mooney has lucidly put it:
[Peer Review] is an undisputed cornerstone of modern science. Central to the competitive clash of ideas that moves knowledge forward, peer review enjoys so much renown in the scientific community that studies lacking its imprimatur meet with automatic skepticism. Academic reputations hinge on an ability to get work through peer review and into leading journals; university presses employ peer review to decide which books they're willing to publish; and federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health use peer review to weigh the merits of applications for federal research grants.
No comments:
Post a Comment