{"id":924,"date":"2014-06-16T21:24:56","date_gmt":"2014-06-16T21:24:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/?p=924"},"modified":"2016-01-06T18:09:10","modified_gmt":"2016-01-06T18:09:10","slug":"peer-review-experimenting-with-think-tanks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/peer-review-experimenting-with-think-tanks\/","title":{"rendered":"Peer review: experimenting with think tanks"},"content":{"rendered":"
[Editor\u2019s note: This is the first of a series of posts on a peer review mechanism pilot for think tanks. It has been edited by Andrea Ordo\u00f1ez as part of the\u00a0Guest Editor initiative\u00a0<\/a>launched by On Think Tanks last year. If you are interested in being a Guest Editor please get in touch.]<\/em><\/p>\n At the end of 2013, I started a small project with the\u00a0Think Tank Initiative<\/a>\u00a0(TTI): a pilot Peer Review System for the think tanks that are supported by the initiative in Latin America. This idea, born originally at the first global meeting of the Initiative, came to life in the last months. Behind this pilot is a spirit of maximizing the value of being part of this community of institutions.<\/p>\n Peer review still is the most common, valuable and credible mechanism available for researchers to assess the quality of academic work. The principle is simple: other experts in the field are the best qualified individuals to judge the relevance, originality and rigour of a peer\u2019s work. The concept has attracted others, and there are those who suggest transferring it to other arenas, with initiatives now available for government officials to exchange reviews with other countries\u2019 colleagues (for example, the\u00a0African Peer Review Mechanism<\/a>).<\/p>\n Given the centrality of the peer review process in academia, there is much debate on how relevant it is, if it is really improving the research process, and if other ways of assessing research should be developed. Think tanks, living in the complex settings of academia, practice and policy, often see peer review processes as the mechanism to assess the academic aspect of their work, and also a mechanism to gain credibility.<\/p>\n What can think tanks learn about the peer review processes for their own work? What are the specific needs of think tanks when it comes to reviews? Are there special considerations to be taken into account? How do researchers and reviewers react to a peer review process? [Editor\u2019s note:\u00a0CIPPEC has an internal peer review process\u00a0<\/a>that is worth looking at.]<\/p>\n This series, devoted to the implementation of the peer review options for think tanks, seeks to shed some light on these concerns. It is based on work with eleven think tanks in Latin America, who submitted eighteen products to be reviewed. The process involved carrying out a scoping study of what think tanks currently do to assess their work, the revision of their knowledge products, and the systematization of feedback from the researchers and the reviewers on the system. This series is a work in process; the idea is to gain as much information as possible, along with comments from others who might be interested in peer review processes to enrich future interventions.<\/p>\n The series includes the following posts:<\/p>\n I am really eager to hear what researchers at think tanks have to say about these findings. I hope that some of the questions we raise throughout the series inspire us to further discuss the nature of the work think tanks carry out and if a peer review process has a role to play in these settings.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Andrea Ordo\u00f1ez writes about a new peer review mechanism for think tanks that the Think Tank initiative has piloted recently. She has produced a series of posts that explore the approach, consider possible lessons learned, and outlines recommendations for future efforts. In this post, she introduces the series.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_relevanssi_hide_post":"","_relevanssi_hide_content":"","_relevanssi_pin_for_all":"","_relevanssi_pin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_unpin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_include_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_exclude_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_no_append":"","_relevanssi_related_not_related":"","_relevanssi_related_posts":"","_relevanssi_noindex_reason":"","footnotes":""},"tags":[182],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/924"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=924"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/924\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=924"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=924"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n