This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library] On: 12 November 2014, At: 08:50 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Sports Sciences Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20
Editorial Thomas Reilly
a
a
Liverpool John Moores University Published online: 14 Nov 2007.
To cite this article: Thomas Reilly (1992) Editorial, Journal of Sports Sciences, 10:5, 399-399, DOI: 10.1080/02640419208729938 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640419208729938
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sublicensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Sports Sciences, 1992,10, 399
Editorial
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 08:50 12 November 2014
Appraisal and peer review In the 1990s, it is taken for granted that most aspects of professional activity are regularly appraised. This philosophy of appraisal pervades all areas of public service, including education and research. The emphasis on efficiency assessment overlaps with evaluation and quality control. Many scholars have been reluctant to accept that economic criteria are appropriate in application to their work, but have been obliged to do so. Research workers are becoming increasingly aware of the pressures to reduce costs and the need to deliver research outcomes, while those concerned with 'pure research' have been forced to defend their own corners more and more vigorously. This trend towards accountability is a worldwide phenomenon, though historically attitudes have varied greatly between nations. Scientists in North America have grown up with the peer review process as the cornerstone of their profession. They willingly submit to the process in competition for grants, in securing tenure and in seeking promotion. Sports scientists in the UK and Europe have traditionally been more secure in their employment, but pay a price in terms of teaching and administrative burdens that leave little time for 'thinking'. Often they are unable to complete their research efforts and provide a manuscript for publication. Thus the peer review process is not experienced and, it is argued, the research project is thereby incomplete. Sports science has grown greatly over the last decade with little indication that the market for sports scientists is yet saturated. Research projects proliferate, as evidenced by the mammoth meetings of the American College of Sports Medicine, the scientific congresses of the International Olympic Committee initiated in 1989 and the various conferences held under the auspices of ICSSPE and the World Commission for Sports Biomechanics. In the UK, the scientific programme of the British Association of Sports Sciences' annual meeting is now of substantial proportions - abstracts for the 1992 conference have been peer reviewed by this Journal's editorial board and will appear in the next issue. The validity of sports science in the UK is now acknowledged by the acceptance of funding authorities of'sports science and physical education' as a unit of assessment. These trends provide more material for periodicals such as this. In order to cope with the increasing flow of papers, the Journal's format is being changed in 1993 to accommodate approximately one-third more material in each issue. This of course places an even greater burden on the band of referees whose altruistic endeavours are essential to the peer review process. Liverpool John Moores University
0264-0414/92 © 1992 E. & F.N. Spon
THOMAS REILLY
Journal of Sports Sciences Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20
Editorial Thomas Reilly
a
a
Liverpool John Moores University Published online: 14 Nov 2007.
To cite this article: Thomas Reilly (1992) Editorial, Journal of Sports Sciences, 10:5, 399-399, DOI: 10.1080/02640419208729938 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640419208729938
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sublicensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Sports Sciences, 1992,10, 399
Editorial
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 08:50 12 November 2014
Appraisal and peer review In the 1990s, it is taken for granted that most aspects of professional activity are regularly appraised. This philosophy of appraisal pervades all areas of public service, including education and research. The emphasis on efficiency assessment overlaps with evaluation and quality control. Many scholars have been reluctant to accept that economic criteria are appropriate in application to their work, but have been obliged to do so. Research workers are becoming increasingly aware of the pressures to reduce costs and the need to deliver research outcomes, while those concerned with 'pure research' have been forced to defend their own corners more and more vigorously. This trend towards accountability is a worldwide phenomenon, though historically attitudes have varied greatly between nations. Scientists in North America have grown up with the peer review process as the cornerstone of their profession. They willingly submit to the process in competition for grants, in securing tenure and in seeking promotion. Sports scientists in the UK and Europe have traditionally been more secure in their employment, but pay a price in terms of teaching and administrative burdens that leave little time for 'thinking'. Often they are unable to complete their research efforts and provide a manuscript for publication. Thus the peer review process is not experienced and, it is argued, the research project is thereby incomplete. Sports science has grown greatly over the last decade with little indication that the market for sports scientists is yet saturated. Research projects proliferate, as evidenced by the mammoth meetings of the American College of Sports Medicine, the scientific congresses of the International Olympic Committee initiated in 1989 and the various conferences held under the auspices of ICSSPE and the World Commission for Sports Biomechanics. In the UK, the scientific programme of the British Association of Sports Sciences' annual meeting is now of substantial proportions - abstracts for the 1992 conference have been peer reviewed by this Journal's editorial board and will appear in the next issue. The validity of sports science in the UK is now acknowledged by the acceptance of funding authorities of'sports science and physical education' as a unit of assessment. These trends provide more material for periodicals such as this. In order to cope with the increasing flow of papers, the Journal's format is being changed in 1993 to accommodate approximately one-third more material in each issue. This of course places an even greater burden on the band of referees whose altruistic endeavours are essential to the peer review process. Liverpool John Moores University
0264-0414/92 © 1992 E. & F.N. Spon
THOMAS REILLY
