IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v21y2012i1p48-60.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Terttu Luukkonen

Abstract

This article explores the newly founded European Research Council's (ERC) peer review system and its ability to sustain its mission to promote excellent, groundbreaking research. The article explores the extent to which the selection of groundbreaking research is constrained by inherent limitations in peer review by analysing the informal practices of ERC peer reviewers. This article notes that controversy and uncertainty are central characteristics of potentially groundbreaking research proposals. The selection of truly innovative research is constrained by the boundaries on current knowledge, against which the value of proposed research is judged; these boundaries affect the extent to which peer review panellists feel they can take risks in their judgments and the rules of interpretation and deliberation they adopt. The role of customary interpretative rules is to limit the risks involved in decision making. Predicting the outcomes of peer review in controversial situations is difficult, however, as contingent factors play an important role. Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Terttu Luukkonen, 2012. "Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 48-60, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:21:y:2012:i:1:p:48-60
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvs001
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:21:y:2012:i:1:p:48-60. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.