Peer review

From Opasnet
Revision as of 09:37, 16 January 2009 by Jouni (talk | contribs) (first draft based on own thinking)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This page is about peer review in open assessment. For other uses, see Peer review in Wikipedia.

Peer review in open assessment is a method for evaluating model uncertainty, i.e. uncertainty that is not captured by the explicit parameter uncertainty, which is described by model parameters and distributions. Technically, it is a discussion about an object (typically an assessment or a variable), which has the following statement:

"This object describes a phenomenon that is defined in the scope. The description reflects the reality in such a precise way that the uncertainties related to the results and/or conclusions can effectively and truthfully be evaluated using the parameter uncertainties described. In other words, there are no known model uncertainties that 1) would bias the results and that 2) are currently omitted."

Scope

What is the method of gaining social acceptance to an object?

Definition

Input

Output

Rationale

Result

Procedure

Peer review in open assessment is a method for evaluating model uncertainty, i.e. uncertainty that is not captured by the explicit parameter uncertainty, which is described by model parameters and distributions. Technically, it is a discussion about an object (typically an assessment or a variable), which has the following statement:

"This object describes a phenomenon that is defined in the scope. The description reflects the reality in such a precise way that the uncertainties related to the results and/or conclusions can effectively and truthfully be evaluated using the parameter uncertainties described. In other words, there are no known model uncertainties that 1) would bias the results and that 2) are currently omitted."

Management

The peer review discussion has the following form:

Peer review

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement:

Closing statement: Resolution not yet found.

(A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

←--1: . The definition reflects the state-of-the-art of this field and does not lack any such sources of information that would clearly deviate the result from the current result. --Jouni 11:37, 16 January 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--3: . The issue described in argument 2 is missing. --Jouni 11:37, 16 January 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--2: . The issue of ...(describe the issue here)... is important and relevant for this object. --Jouni 11:37, 16 January 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

See also

References