Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1166433
Registro completo de metadatos
Campo DCValorLengua/Idioma
dc.contributor.authorPINTO, D. M.
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-12T14:55:41Z-
dc.date.available2024-08-12T14:55:41Z-
dc.date.created2024-08-12
dc.date.issued2024
dc.identifier.citationIn: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE OF SCIENCE AND INNOVATION, 2024, Washington. Proceedings... Whashington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2024.
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1166433-
dc.descriptionABSTRACT: Recent discussions regarding more transparent practices of research prioritization, selection, and funding involves, among other aspects, a deeper understanding of traditional procedures for scientific evaluation, known as peer review. In this context, discussions frequently highlight potential limitations of the classic peer review model, which is seen as vulnerable to various forms of interference and inaccuracies that may impact both the selection of research for funding and the determination of publication outcomes (Recio- Saucedo et al., 2022). Despite this acknowledgment, research on peer review is scarce, both when considering this practice in the context of scientific journals (Squazzoni et al., 2020) and funding agencies. One of the main reasons for this gap is the absence of data.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.rightsopenAccess
dc.subjectResearch prioritization
dc.titleDeviations in Peer Review Processes: a study of Funding Selection Practices.
dc.typeResumo em anais e proceedings
dc.format.extent21 p.
riaa.ainfo.id1166433
riaa.ainfo.lastupdate2024-08-12
dc.contributor.institutionDANIELA MACIEL PINTO, CNPM.
Aparece en las colecciones:Resumo em anais de congresso (CNPM)

Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción TamañoFormato 
6237.pdf225.27 kBAdobe PDFVista previa
Visualizar/Abrir
Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

FacebookTwitterDeliciousLinkedInGoogle BookmarksMySpace