SciPinion is comprised of three parts:
The System
The Problem with classic Peer Review Model
Some problems with current models for peer review include:
- GroupThink: Where individuals tend to think alike
- Peer Pressure: There may be deference to the ‘famous’ expert on the panel
- Social Pressure: For many controversial topics, experts may be attacked for their positions or for even serving on a panel. This has caused many experts to not be willing to serve on panels of controversial topics. (GRAPHIC)
- Funding pressure: Also called the ‘father-in-law’ effect. What would you say to your father-in-law if he asks what you think about his daughter? The same phenomenon occurs on peer review panels. You know who is asking your opinion and you want to be helpful. There is a tendency to be more positive than negative.
The SciPinion Solution
We developed a novel process which:
- Eliminates GroupThink: All experts work independently and have to answer all questions independently before seeing everyone else’s opinion.
- Eliminates Peer Pressure: All experts work anonymously within our web app so no expert knows who else is involved
- Provides Anonymity: We recommend allowing experts to remain anonymous throughout the entire engagement. This eliminates social pressure. We also realize this is not always possible, so we do disclose experts identities if required, but the experts know this when being recruited.
- Eliminates Funding Source Pressure: We can blind the experts to the funding party.
The Experts
We recruit and vet experts in all areas of expertise.
- We can recruit almost any discipline imaginable
- Experts are from all over the world
- Experts are from all sectors of employment
- We already have thousands of experts with SciPinion user accounts and we are averaging >200 new accounts per month.
The Technology
To facilitate the system processes and expert orchestration, we built the SciPi web app. The web app features include:
Survey Builder
The core of the app is a survey builder with flexibility to write many different types of questions and answer options.
Secure Controls
The sponsor maintains control throughout the entire process. You get to control who has access to your data, questions, and results/reports. We control which experts get access to a SciPi.
Custom reporting
Using our proprietary analytics library, we provide an easily interpretable (graphic) report of results. A csv file of all results supports offline statistical analyses.
Advanced access controls
We support several unique levels of access to a SciPi:
- Observer – can watch results and debates
- Auditors – get to see who is engaged and results/debates
- Participants – get to review data/material and answer questions and take part in debates.
- Administrators – that’s us. We have ultimate control within a SciPi.
Anonymous Debate
Participants debate results anonymously and vote on most useful feedback
The Results
Leveraging the collective wisdom of the experts to help you make better decisions.