Category:Quality of an object: Difference between revisions

Scope

Quality of object describes possible levels of quality of an object in the Opasnet.

Definition

Result

Quality of an object (in practice, a page on the Opasnet), can be assessed based on at least three different criteria:

1. Peer review. The basis for the review is the quality of work performed.
   • Unacceptable: The page does not comply with minimum standards of scientific work.
   • Acceptable: The page has utilised acceptable scientific methods in a proper way, and sufficient scientific critique has been applied.
   • State of the art: The page has been developed using state-of-the-art scientific methods and information.
   • Outstanding: The page has been developed using highly innovative methods and/or data.
2. Assessment by an independent expert of the field. The basis for the assessment is a quantitative comparison against an external standard. The properties assessed are the following:
   • Calibration
   • Informativeness
   • Performance
3. Self-evaluation. The basis for the evaluation is the amount and type of work performed. Possible grades:
   • Unstructured: The page does not (yet) have a proper structure and/or estimate.
   • Placeholder: an estimate based on guesswork rather than data. However, the page is structured in the right way and has the desired functionality (e.g. as a part of a model).
   • Preliminary: an estimate based on maybe one piece of evidence. Reliability has not been evaluated.
   • Draft: an estimate based on several independent pieces of evidence. Reliability of at least some pieces is considered adequate.
   • Review: an estimate based on a systematic literature review and a formal method to derive a result based on the evidence.

See also

• Quality assurance and quality control
• Template:Peer review
• Template:Quality assessment
• Template:Self-evaluation

References