Grey literature review code

It is often assumed that grey literature is not peer reviewed or lacks standards of quality and rigour. While this is often incorrect, there is currently no standard way of indicating the kind of review process that has occurred. There are also alternative methods to peer review that are often used to scrutinise grey literature such as review by an expert panel or board, internal review and post publication review. This set of Review Codes are suggested as a simple way of indicating to readers that a review process that has been undertaken and what that has entailed. In order to use the Review Code 1. Select the code that is applicable from the list. 2. Add it to the bibliographic information on your document or resource 3. Include a brief explanation of the review process either within the resource or on a separate page with a link provided.   Review Codes Independent peer review Pre-publication peer-review conducted with 1 or more independent experts (academics or recognised experts in the field)   Expert panel review Pre-publication peer-review conducted via expert panel or board which may or may not include members outside of the organisation   Internal review Pre-publication review conducted internally or with external service including proof reading and editing, fact checking and confirmation of results   Other review process Some kind of pre-publication review process conducted that does not fit into any of the above.   Post publication peer review Material able to be reviewed publically on post  publication review website   --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is an initial concept and feedback is welcome. We are also considering developing some icons that could be used to simplify recognition of the different Review Codes. Produced as part of the Grey Literature Strategies ARC Linkage project       &nbsp

Strengthening America's Best Idea: An Independent Review of the National Park Service's Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Directorate

NRSS requested that an independent panel of the National Academy conduct a review of its effectiveness in five core functions, its relationships with key internal stakeholders, and its performance measurement system. Among other things, the National Park Service's Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Directorate (NRSS) is responsible for providing usable natural and social science information throughout the National Park Service (NPS). NRSS leadership requested this review of the directorate's performance on five core functions, its relationships with key internal NPS stakeholders, and its performance measurement system.Main FindingsThe panel determined that NRSS is a highly regarded organization that provides independent, credible scientific expertise and technical information. The panel also found that NRSS and NPS have additional opportunities to advance natural resource stewardship throughout the Service. If implemented, the panel's eight major recommendations will: (1) help the Service respond to the parks' environmental challenges while raising public awareness about the condition of these special places; (2) strengthen NRSS as an organization; (3) promote scientifically based decision-making at the national, regional, and park levels; and (4) improve the existing performance measurement system

How the Marsden Fund has failed to achieve its full potential in the ESA panel: evidence of limitations in scope, biased outcomes, and futile applications

We have analysed the scope of proposals funded by the ‘Earth Sciences and Astronomy’ (ESA) panel of the Marsden Fund for the period 2004 to 2013. The scope of proposals funded is very limited and does not reflect the full remit of the panel: the successful projects fail to encompass the quality and quantity of research being undertaken within the Earth sciences community in New Zealand, and a number of sub-disciplines that seek to address fundamental and important problems within the Earth sciences are largely excluded. Moreover, nearly 50% of the funded proposals for the past decade have been made to just two institutions. To address these limitations, we suggest that: (1) a review is undertaken to examine and widen the scope of the panel to encompass sub-disciplines that demonstrably are never or rarely funded; (2) the composition of panel members be examined and modified to reflect a much wider scope of sub-disciplines within the Earth sciences; and (3) a review of the wide discrepancies in funding distributions on an institutional basis be undertaken. We want to ensure that a more representative range of sub-disciplines, in keeping with modern and realistic definitions of the Earth sciences, is funded through this panel, and so we also recommend the formation of a new panel for ‘Environmental and Earth-system Sciences’ that could encompass the research involving modern-day processes so that applications in these sub-disciplines are not pointless. In addition, it is clear that a very substantial increase in funding to the Marsden Fund must be sought

Review of the Renewable Energy Target: expert panel call for submissions

This paper introduces a review examining the operation, costs and benefits of the Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme including the economic, environmental and social impacts, and invites the public to make submissions. Summary On 17 February 2014, the review of the Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme was jointly announced by the Hon Ian Macfarlane MP, the Minister for Industry, and the Hon Greg Hunt MP, the Minister for the Environment. The Terms of Reference state that the review is to examine the operation, costs and benefits of the RET scheme including the economic, environmental and social impacts, the extent to which the objectives of the scheme are being met and the interaction of the RET with other Commonwealth and State/Territory Government policies. The review is to provide advice on whether the objectives of the RET scheme are still appropriate and the range of options available for reducing its impact on electricity prices. An Expert Panel has been appointed to undertake the review, comprising : Mr Dick Warburton AO LVO (chair ), Dr Brian Fisher AO PSM, Ms Shirley In’t Veld and Mr Matt Zema. The Panel is supported by a secretariat in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. This paper will assist individuals and organisations to prepare submissions on the review . It identifies matters that the Panel considers most relevant , but comments on other issues are welcome. The Panel is particularly interested in any evidence to support findings and conclusions made in submissions.   This call for submissions closes on 16 May 2014. Find out more about making a submission here

Random Coefficient Panel Data Models

This paper provides a review of linear panel data models with slope heterogeneity, introduces various types of random coefficient models and suggest a common framework for dealing with them. It considers the fundamental issues of statistical inference of a random coefficients formulation using both the sampling and Bayesian approaches. The paper also provides a review of heterogeneous dynamic panels, testing for homogeneity under weak exogeneity, simultaneous equation random coefficient models, and the more recent developments in the area of cross-sectional dependence in panel data models.random coefficient models, dynamic heterogeneous panels, classical and Bayesian approaches, tests of slope heterogeneity, cross section dependence