Abstract
AbstractHow can interdisciplinary research proposals be more effectively assessed through peer review? A key issue is to characterize what constitutes appropriate peer review for interdisciplinary research. This is approached by considering four key elements on which evaluations of funding proposals are based: (1) the significance of the topic, (2) the importance and tractability of the research question, (3) the appropriateness of the methods and (4) the competence of the applicants, based on track record. Two major differences between disciplinary and interdisciplinary research emerge: (1) the unknowns that form the basis of research questions and (2) the methods employed. For peer review of interdisciplinary research proposals to become more effective, agreed criteria for assessment by peer review are required and this will only occur if interdisciplinarity is “organized” through colleges of peers and professional associations. This article is published as part of a collection on interdisciplinarity.
Highlights
How can interdisciplinary research proposals be more effectively assessed through peer review? A key issue is to characterize what constitutes appropriate peer review for interdisciplinary research
How do interdisciplinary research proposals fare in the peer-review system? Despite considerable grumbling from interdisciplinary researchers about the inappropriateness of reviews, there is little evidence about the comparative success rates of disciplinary and interdisciplinary project proposals
Let us return to the four elements of peer review to focus on what they mean for assessment of interdisciplinary research proposals
Summary
Assessing the research question requires examining the unknowns being tackled, especially whether they are critical unknowns likely to yield productive outcomes. In the heroin prescription feasibility research, for example, police were very concerned that the city hosting the trial would become a “honeypot” for drug users from around Australia and possibly beyond (Bammer et al, 1994) This was not an unknown that any of the disciplines involved brought to the table and it was not addressed using solely discipline-based research. If impact becomes a significant assessment factor, interdisciplinary teams may do better than discipline-based teams, that too is yet to be properly evaluated These issues further illustrate the importance of review by peers with similar experience and expertise. Just as peer groups and professional associations of immunologists and sociologists establish the, very different, norms for track record in their disciplines, the challenge for interdisciplinarians is to establish their own norms, which may differ for different kinds of interdisciplinarity
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
