- Home
- About us
- ILAC Activities
- Resources
- ILAC Publications
- ILAC Briefs
- Working Papers
- ILAC Sourcebook
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Chapter 6: Introduction Part 2
- Chapter 7: Innovation histories
- Chapter 9: Culture study as a tool for change
- Chapter 12: Collaborative agreements
- Chapter 13: Facilitation as a foundation skill for ILAC
- Chapter 14: Learning alliances
- Chapter 15: Institutional histories
- Chapter 16: Engaging Scientists through Institutional Histories
- Chapter 18: Horizontal evaluation
- Chapter 19: Appreciative inquiry
- Part 3 - Cases and experiences
- Part 4 - Challenges and strategies
- About the authors
- Glossary
- References
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Reports
- Journal Articles
- Newsletter
- Presentations by ILAC Team
- ILAC Library
- Tools and methods for M&E
- Appreciative inquiry
- Biophysical measurements
- Case study
- Content analysis
- Contribution analysis
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Creative expression
- Diaries, journals and logs
- Dreams realised or visioning
- Expert review
- GIS mapping
- Graphing results
- Group assessment
- Historical trends and timelines
- Horizontal evaluation
- Impact evaluation
- Benefit-cost methods
- Case studies
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE)
- Difference-in-difference
- Econometric methods
- Ex-post comparison of project beneficiaries with a control group
- Instrumental variables
- Integrated partial indicators
- Mathematical programming
- Modified peer review
- Partial indicators of impact
- Patent analysis
- Pipeline comparison
- Production function approach
- Propensity score matching
- Quasi-experimental design, involving the use of matched control and project groups
- Randomization
- Rapid assessment or review, conducted ex post
- Regression discontinuity design
- Simulation method
- User surveys
- Impact flow diagram
- Innovation histories
- Institutional history
- Institutional linkage diagram
- Interviews
- Learning alliances
- Learning-oriented evaluation
- M&E Frameworks
- M&E wheel (or "spider web")
- Mapping (sketch)
- Matrix scoring
- Most significant change
- Net-Map
- Non-random sampling
- Observation
- Outcome mapping
- Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis
- Participatory methods
- Performance indicators
- Photographs and video
- Problem and objectives trees
- Random sampling
- Ranking and pocket charts
- Rapid appraisal methods
- Relative scales or ladders
- Rich pictures (or mind maps)
- SWOT
- Seasonal calendars
- Semantic differentials
- Social mapping or well-being ranking
- Sociograms
- Stakeholder analysis
- Survey
- Systems (or inputs-outputs) diagram
- Theory-Based Evaluation
- Transects
- Evaluation studies and reports
- Evaluating capacity development
- Partnership
- Seminars
- Video Room
- Links to other sites
- E-learning courses
- ILAC Publications
- Contact
- Blog
Modified peer review
Mon, 03/02/2009 - 14:05 — Cristina Sette
The following text is drawn from ISNAR (2003).
Traditional peer review involves the assessment of the quality (scientific merit) of the research by scientific experts (peers) in the specific research field. Modified peer review on the other hand involves combining some form of socio-economic impact assessment with traditional peer review. This is accomplished by inlcuding non-peer members in the expert group such as economists, social scientists, civil servants, extension staff, NGO representatives, farmer representatives, etc.
The most common structure of a modified peer review involving scientific peers and socio-economic experts is that the two reviews are carried out independently and the results are then brought together in an integrated report by a third party. Sometimes, however, the assessments of the scientific peers are provided to socio-economic experts, who then take these options into consideration in carrying out their own review.
Modified peer reviews often take the form of a basic questions and aswer format - facilitated by interview techniques. The method can also involve iteractive discussion process to reach a consensus.
Weakness of Modified Peer Review
The major weakness of modified peer review is that generally a small number of individuals are involved, and, as a result, it is difficult to gather a sufficiently broad base of knowledge to credibly comment on the economic and social impacts of the R&D activities.
Suitability of Modified Peer Review
This method is equally well suited for assessing R&D carried out in the past, on-going R&D, and R&D that are being considered for the future. The method can be used for basic, strategic as well as applied R&D activities. It is most useful for assessing R&D projects and programs and not particularly useful for assessing larger R&D activities, i.e., national level allocation of resources within agriculture.
Source: ISNAR (2003) Monitoring, Evaluation, and Impact Assessment of R&D Investments in Agriculture, The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page