Asset Details
MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Does Peer Review Work? An Experiment of Experimentalism
by
Ho, Daniel E.
in
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
/ Attitudes
/ CITIZENSHIP
/ Collective bargaining
/ Company business management
/ Court decisions and opinions
/ Emigration and immigration law
/ Evaluation
/ Examiners (Administrative procedure)
/ Food adulteration and inspection
/ Food inspection
/ Food safety
/ IMMIGRATION
/ Inspections
/ Judges
/ JUDICIARY
/ Labor contracts
/ LANGUAGE
/ Management
/ Occupational safety
/ Peer review
/ Public administration
/ PUBLIC HEALTH
/ Salmonella
/ Scholars
/ Social security
/ U.S. states
/ United States. Social Security Administration
2017
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Does Peer Review Work? An Experiment of Experimentalism
by
Ho, Daniel E.
in
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
/ Attitudes
/ CITIZENSHIP
/ Collective bargaining
/ Company business management
/ Court decisions and opinions
/ Emigration and immigration law
/ Evaluation
/ Examiners (Administrative procedure)
/ Food adulteration and inspection
/ Food inspection
/ Food safety
/ IMMIGRATION
/ Inspections
/ Judges
/ JUDICIARY
/ Labor contracts
/ LANGUAGE
/ Management
/ Occupational safety
/ Peer review
/ Public administration
/ PUBLIC HEALTH
/ Salmonella
/ Scholars
/ Social security
/ U.S. states
/ United States. Social Security Administration
2017
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Does Peer Review Work? An Experiment of Experimentalism
by
Ho, Daniel E.
in
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
/ Attitudes
/ CITIZENSHIP
/ Collective bargaining
/ Company business management
/ Court decisions and opinions
/ Emigration and immigration law
/ Evaluation
/ Examiners (Administrative procedure)
/ Food adulteration and inspection
/ Food inspection
/ Food safety
/ IMMIGRATION
/ Inspections
/ Judges
/ JUDICIARY
/ Labor contracts
/ LANGUAGE
/ Management
/ Occupational safety
/ Peer review
/ Public administration
/ PUBLIC HEALTH
/ Salmonella
/ Scholars
/ Social security
/ U.S. states
/ United States. Social Security Administration
2017
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Does Peer Review Work? An Experiment of Experimentalism
2017
Request Book From Autostore
and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Ensuring the accuracy and consistency of highly decentralized and discretionary decisionmaking is a core challenge for the administrative state. The widely influential school of \"democratic experimentalism\" posits that peer review—the direct and deliberative evaluation of work product by peers in the discipline—provides a way forward, but systematic evidence remains limited. This Article provides the first empirical study of the feasibility and effects of peer review as a governance mechanism based on a unique randomized controlled trial conducted with the largest health department in Washington State (Public Health—Seattle and King County). We randomly assigned half of the food safety inspection staff to engage in an intensive peer review process for over four months. Pairs of inspectors jointly visited establishments, separately assessed health code violations, and deliberated about divergences on health code implementation. Our findings are threefold. First, observing identical conditions, inspectors disagreed 60% of the time. These joint inspection results in turn helped to pinpoint challenging code items and to develop training and guidance documents efficiently during weekly sessions. Second, analyzing over 28,000 independently conducted inspections across the peer review and control groups, we find that the intervention caused an increase in violations detected and scored by 17% to 19%. Third, peer review appeared to decrease variability across inspectors, thereby improving the consistency of inspections. As a result of this trial, King County has now instituted peer review as a standard practice. Our study has rich implications for the feasibility, promise, practice, and pitfalls of peer review, democratic experimentalism, and the administrative state.
Publisher
students of the Stanford Law School,Stanford Law School,Stanford University, Stanford Law School
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.