<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Peer Review Practice</title>
	<atom:link href="http://peerreviewpractice.org/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://peerreviewpractice.org</link>
	<description>A blog for exchange of critical ideas and good practices</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 14:57:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Debate Continues on Criteria for Awarding Grants by NSF</title>
		<link>http://peerreviewpractice.org/debate-continues-on-criteria-for-awarding-grants-by-nsf/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=debate-continues-on-criteria-for-awarding-grants-by-nsf</link>
		<comments>http://peerreviewpractice.org/debate-continues-on-criteria-for-awarding-grants-by-nsf/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 14:57:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robb Turner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[balance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NSF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[principles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[standards]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peerreviewpractice.org/?p=328876</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While the debate continues over how grants are awarded by NSF, it appears the peer review process itself is not the target. In an era of tight budgets, the question seems to be is there need for an additional criterion &#8230; <a href="http://peerreviewpractice.org/debate-continues-on-criteria-for-awarding-grants-by-nsf/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://peerreviewpractice.org/debate-continues-on-criteria-for-awarding-grants-by-nsf/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>EPA to Publish Information on Peer Reviewers – Transparency, Free Advertising, Deterrent?</title>
		<link>http://peerreviewpractice.org/epa-to-publish-information-on-peer-reviewers-transparency-free-advertising-deterrent/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=epa-to-publish-information-on-peer-reviewers-transparency-free-advertising-deterrent</link>
		<comments>http://peerreviewpractice.org/epa-to-publish-information-on-peer-reviewers-transparency-free-advertising-deterrent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 14:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robb Turner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[best practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflict of interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[principles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transparency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peerreviewpractice.org/?p=328867</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it has improved its conflict of interest review process for contractor-managed peer reviews by ensuring that the public has the opportunity to review and comment on a peer review panel’s composition when &#8230; <a href="http://peerreviewpractice.org/epa-to-publish-information-on-peer-reviewers-transparency-free-advertising-deterrent/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://peerreviewpractice.org/epa-to-publish-information-on-peer-reviewers-transparency-free-advertising-deterrent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FY14 NSF Budget Calls for Increased Use of Virtual Merit Review</title>
		<link>http://peerreviewpractice.org/fy14-nsf-budget-calls-for-increased-use-of-virtual-merit-review/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fy14-nsf-budget-calls-for-increased-use-of-virtual-merit-review</link>
		<comments>http://peerreviewpractice.org/fy14-nsf-budget-calls-for-increased-use-of-virtual-merit-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:42:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robb Turner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[best practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cost savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NSF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[virtual meetings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peerreviewpractice.org/?p=312734</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[TheFY2014 President’s Budget for the National Science Foundation(NSF) proposes $4.09 million for “Improving the operational execution of the Merit Review Process, an essential step to address the extraordinary pressures the Foundation faces due to a growing number of proposals and &#8230; <a href="http://peerreviewpractice.org/fy14-nsf-budget-calls-for-increased-use-of-virtual-merit-review/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://peerreviewpractice.org/fy14-nsf-budget-calls-for-increased-use-of-virtual-merit-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Expert Network Consulting &#8211; Potential for Conflict of Interest?</title>
		<link>http://peerreviewpractice.org/expert-network-consulting-potential-for-conflict-of-interest/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=expert-network-consulting-potential-for-conflict-of-interest</link>
		<comments>http://peerreviewpractice.org/expert-network-consulting-potential-for-conflict-of-interest/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:25:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robb Turner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflict of interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[principles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[risk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[standards]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peerreviewpractice.org/?p=216330</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is consulting for an expert network firm a new or growing form of potential conflict of interest to be watched for in selecting peer reviewers or managing reviews? An article by Jeffrey Mervis in this week’s Science describes the practice and &#8230; <a href="http://peerreviewpractice.org/expert-network-consulting-potential-for-conflict-of-interest/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://peerreviewpractice.org/expert-network-consulting-potential-for-conflict-of-interest/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Italian Review of Scientists and Research Institutions Sparks Protest</title>
		<link>http://peerreviewpractice.org/italian-review-of-scientists-and-research-institutions-sparks-protest/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=italian-review-of-scientists-and-research-institutions-sparks-protest</link>
		<comments>http://peerreviewpractice.org/italian-review-of-scientists-and-research-institutions-sparks-protest/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:45:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robb Turner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[best practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[standards]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peerreviewpractice.org/?p=175335</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Critics say a government review of scientists and research institutions coordinated by the National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes (ANVUR) is using flawed criteria and will do little to reward the best Italian scientists. For researchers &#8230; <a href="http://peerreviewpractice.org/italian-review-of-scientists-and-research-institutions-sparks-protest/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://peerreviewpractice.org/italian-review-of-scientists-and-research-institutions-sparks-protest/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PCAST Urges More Risk-Taking</title>
		<link>http://peerreviewpractice.org/pcast-urges-more-risk-taking/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=pcast-urges-more-risk-taking</link>
		<comments>http://peerreviewpractice.org/pcast-urges-more-risk-taking/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2012 14:18:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robb Turner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[balance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NIH]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NSF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[principles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[risk]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peerreviewpractice.org/?p=144543</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Science 7 December News and Analysis: (subscription required for full article) A new report by the President&#8217;s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) urges U.S. research agencies to make a bigger commitment to supporting high-risk, interdisciplinary research &#8230; <a href="http://peerreviewpractice.org/pcast-urges-more-risk-taking/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://peerreviewpractice.org/pcast-urges-more-risk-taking/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Saving Meetings from Hurricane Sandy</title>
		<link>http://peerreviewpractice.org/saving-meetings-from-hurricane-sandy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=saving-meetings-from-hurricane-sandy</link>
		<comments>http://peerreviewpractice.org/saving-meetings-from-hurricane-sandy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:02:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>donnat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[best practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cost savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peerreviewpractice.org/?p=90804</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the days leading up to the storm, ISS Certified Meeting Professionals developed proactive plans with ORAU peer review project managers to minimize the impact of the hurricane on meetings planned for the metro DC and Philadelphia areas. From the safety &#8230; <a href="http://peerreviewpractice.org/saving-meetings-from-hurricane-sandy/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://peerreviewpractice.org/saving-meetings-from-hurricane-sandy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>World Science Academies Release Report to Promote Research Integrity</title>
		<link>http://peerreviewpractice.org/world-science-academies-release-report-to-promote-research-integrity/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=world-science-academies-release-report-to-promote-research-integrity</link>
		<comments>http://peerreviewpractice.org/world-science-academies-release-report-to-promote-research-integrity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:48:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robb Turner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[best practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NAS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[principles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[standards]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peerreviewpractice.org/?p=67899</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To encourage researchers around the world to adhere to universal science values and ethical behavior, a new report on responsible science was issued October 17th by the InterAcademy Council and the IAP – the global network of science academies. The &#8230; <a href="http://peerreviewpractice.org/world-science-academies-release-report-to-promote-research-integrity/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://peerreviewpractice.org/world-science-academies-release-report-to-promote-research-integrity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Highly Funded NIH Researchers to Receive Extra Review</title>
		<link>http://peerreviewpractice.org/highly-funded-nih-researchers-to-receive-extra-review/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=highly-funded-nih-researchers-to-receive-extra-review</link>
		<comments>http://peerreviewpractice.org/highly-funded-nih-researchers-to-receive-extra-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:31:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robb Turner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[cost savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NIH]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[principles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peerreviewpractice.org/?p=2410</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From ScienceInsider  The National Institutes of Health (NIH) plans to give extra scrutiny to proposals from researchers receiving more than $1 million a year in direct support from grants—and may not fund them if the research overlaps with what they&#8217;re &#8230; <a href="http://peerreviewpractice.org/highly-funded-nih-researchers-to-receive-extra-review/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://peerreviewpractice.org/highly-funded-nih-researchers-to-receive-extra-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>State Department Initiative to Facilitate Access to US Scientific Peer Review Processes</title>
		<link>http://peerreviewpractice.org/state-department-initiative-to-facilitate-access-to-us-scientific-peer-review-processes/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=state-department-initiative-to-facilitate-access-to-us-scientific-peer-review-processes</link>
		<comments>http://peerreviewpractice.org/state-department-initiative-to-facilitate-access-to-us-scientific-peer-review-processes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:01:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robb Turner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AAAS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NAS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peerreviewpractice.org/?p=639</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The US Department of State has increased its efforts to promote international cooperation in science and engineering, including best practices in scientific peer review. According to the SciDev.Net report, an outreach initiative known as &#8216;Networks of Diasporas in Engineering and &#8230; <a href="http://peerreviewpractice.org/state-department-initiative-to-facilitate-access-to-us-scientific-peer-review-processes/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://peerreviewpractice.org/state-department-initiative-to-facilitate-access-to-us-scientific-peer-review-processes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
