There are four specific peer review methods that the professional advocacy community relies on. In generic terms, peer review is the evaluation of work product by one or more individuals of similar expertise to ensure the quality of the work product that will be used in an advocacy campaign.
In academia, peer review is often used to determine whether an academic paper is of sufficient quality to be published. Quoting peer-reviewed reports is a commonly used method in baseline advocacy, lobbying advocacy, and education advocacy to get the most unbiased, accurate, and credible information to the appropriate decision-maker.
The following peer review methods are also employed to improve an advocate’s performance and credibility with issue …show more content…
Advocates can use the comment period to assess public opinion regarding the publication. This review can be used to quiet dissenting voices, revise the publication, and promote the publication to new audiences.
Peer-review of government policy – The technique of peer review is also used to improve government policy. OMB’s peer review bulletin requires that U.S. federal regulatory agencies submit all "influential scientific information" to peer review before the information is publicly disseminated. This process provides validity to government-issued reports; however it does not ensure their accuracy. Government review processes can be requested by the government. Advocates should be cognizant of potential bias in government reports and should evaluate data utilizing data integrity as the driving evaluation …show more content…
The difference is that the reviewers and author’s identities are concealed throughout the review process. The double blind peer review process eliminates potential bias by a reviewer. This allows the reviewer to critique the paper in the most honest and transparent manner. This method addresses the issue of credibility and trustworthiness. Double blind peer reviews produce higher quality work and more trustworthy data because the bias and potential prejudices held by the reviewer are mitigated. The intent is to ensure that only the facts and methodologies used are evaluated for validity and
In academia, peer review is often used to determine whether an academic paper is of sufficient quality to be published. Quoting peer-reviewed reports is a commonly used method in baseline advocacy, lobbying advocacy, and education advocacy to get the most unbiased, accurate, and credible information to the appropriate decision-maker.
The following peer review methods are also employed to improve an advocate’s performance and credibility with issue …show more content…
Advocates can use the comment period to assess public opinion regarding the publication. This review can be used to quiet dissenting voices, revise the publication, and promote the publication to new audiences.
Peer-review of government policy – The technique of peer review is also used to improve government policy. OMB’s peer review bulletin requires that U.S. federal regulatory agencies submit all "influential scientific information" to peer review before the information is publicly disseminated. This process provides validity to government-issued reports; however it does not ensure their accuracy. Government review processes can be requested by the government. Advocates should be cognizant of potential bias in government reports and should evaluate data utilizing data integrity as the driving evaluation …show more content…
The difference is that the reviewers and author’s identities are concealed throughout the review process. The double blind peer review process eliminates potential bias by a reviewer. This allows the reviewer to critique the paper in the most honest and transparent manner. This method addresses the issue of credibility and trustworthiness. Double blind peer reviews produce higher quality work and more trustworthy data because the bias and potential prejudices held by the reviewer are mitigated. The intent is to ensure that only the facts and methodologies used are evaluated for validity and