Consistency Guarantees for Professional Appraisal of Geotechnical Engineering Design under Market Leading and Deciding

Abstract

Peer review is central to the process of modern engineering. Open peer review gives the impression that decisions are arrived at in a fair and meritocratic manner with an objective, reliable, consistent process. It is responsible for identifying methodological flaws and for improving the quality. Assistance from somebody in the same discipline is valuable. Clients refer to reviewers as referees since they help to determine the fate of a design. The client sets up a hanging committee to carry out open peer review to decide whether a piece of work should be accepted, revised or rejected. Reviewers in similar specialties make up a professional group. In an open peer review refereeing a retaining and protection structure design of building foundation pit excavation, an outside expert as an assessor, might master the art of review to pay attention to guarantee consistency of processes and outcomes.

Keywords

peer review / foundation pit excavation / retaining and protection structure / design introduction

References

[1] Demicheli, V., & Di Pietrantonj, C. (2007). Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2), MR000003

[2] Godlee, F., Jefferson, T., & Sabazia, A. (2002). How to Survive Peer Review. London: BMG Publishing Group

[3] Lock, S. (1985). A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. London: Nuffield Provincials Hospital Trust

[4] Moylan, E.C., Harold, S., O’Neill, C., & Kowalczuk, M.K. (2014). Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer? BMC Pharmacology & Toxicology, 15, 55

[5] Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Godlee, F., Osorio, L., & Smith, R. (2008). What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101, 507–514

[6] Schroter, S., Tite, L., Hutchings, A., & Black, N. (2006). Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 314–317

[7] Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 178–182

[8] Smith, R. (2010). Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Research, 12, S13

[9] Weller, A.C. (2001). Editorial peer review: its strengths and weaknesses (pp.342). Medford, NJ: Information Today

[10] Zheng, J., & Wu, A. (2011). Considerations of technology management for safety hearing to schematic design of timbering system for retaining and protecting for foundation pit excavation in Guangzhou region. Advanced Materials Research, 261, 1386–1392

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg