Judging quality in science. (Editorial)
The joint inspection report by Australia, Peru and the United Kingdom, presented at the last ATCM in Stockholm, contained an unusual recommendation. On the basis of the science that they had seen at the research stations the inspection team had concluded that there was both very good science and ver...
| Published in: | Antarctic Science |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2005
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/2042/ https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102005002993 |
| Summary: | The joint inspection report by Australia, Peru and the United Kingdom, presented at the last ATCM in Stockholm, contained an unusual recommendation. On the basis of the science that they had seen at the research stations the inspection team had concluded that there was both very good science and very poor science being undertaken. They apparently believed that this pattern was probably true of the whole continent but needed a more expert examination. Their recommendation was that SCAR should undertake an in situ assessment of all scientific research in the Antarctic. |
|---|