Seminars and Panels

Panel on Peer-Review Issues

Oct 11, 2012
11:00 A.M. - 1:00 P.M.
UH Hilton,
Waldorf Astoria Ballroom E

Event Description

This is a panel discussion on issues of peer review in journals and funding agencies. The University of Houston’s (UH) Division of Research and the National Science Foundation (NSF) through the "Experiencing Ethics" grant are sponsoring this event.

The event will last about two hours. It will open with a 5-minute position statement from each member of the panel (who s/he is, her/his function, and her/his experience regarding the topic at hand). Then, there will be a Q&A session with questions coming 50% from the moderator (Ioannis Pavlidis) and 50% from the audience. The questions will be focusing on three issues:

(a) Informational: The inner workings of the reviewing system in the various funding agencies and journals.
(b) Critical Comparison and Connection: Substantive differences between the different review systems (e.g., NSF versus NIH); what works well and what sometimes does not work very well and why; connection between publications and grants. Special emphasis will be placed on emerging differences in the journal review process (conventional transactions versus new open-access journals).
(c) Eye into the Future: How things are likely to evolve in the future? What the panel members think should remain and what (if any) should change in the peer review system?

Panel Composition

1. Professor Bruce Wheeler
Chair, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Florida
Editor in Chief, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering

2. Professor Steven Reader
Department of Geography, University of South Florida
Chair in multiple NIH panels

3. Professor Jeff Rogers
Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine
NIH and NSF Investigator

4. Professor Rada Mihalcea
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of North Texas
Presidential Early Career Award Recipient and NSF investigator

Webcast of Event


Audience Feedback

n = 34
Quality Scale: (1 - Low, 5 - High)

Selective Comments

"Very knoledgeable panel, answered many of my questions"

"Thanks a lot for providing such an amazing event to the public. I  wish I could attend upcoming seminars."