Eintrag weiter verarbeiten
Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review
Gespeichert in:
| Zeitschriftentitel: | Journal of Empirical Legal Studies |
|---|---|
| Personen und Körperschaften: | , |
| In: | Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 17, 2020, 2, S. 190-223 |
| Format: | E-Article |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| veröffentlicht: |
Wiley
|
| Schlagwörter: |
| author_facet |
Ho, Daniel E. Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore Ho, Daniel E. Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore |
|---|---|
| author |
Ho, Daniel E. Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore |
| spellingShingle |
Ho, Daniel E. Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review Law Education |
| author_sort |
ho, daniel e. |
| spelling |
Ho, Daniel E. Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore 1740-1453 1740-1461 Wiley Law Education http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jels.12249 <jats:p>Many have advocated for the expansion of peer review to improve scientific judgments in law and public policy. One such test case is the patent examination process, with numerous commentators arguing that scientific peer review can solve informational deficits in patent determinations. We present results from a novel randomized field experiment, carried out over the course of three years, in which 336 prominent scientific experts agreed to provide input on U.S. patent applications. Their input was edited for compliance with submission requirements and submitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) by our research team. We show that the intervention caused examiners to (1) increase search efforts and citations to the non‐patent (scientific) literature and (2) grant the application at lower rates in the first instance. However, results were substantially weaker and resource costs substantially higher than anticipated in the literature, highlighting significant challenges and questions of institutional design in bringing scientific expertise into law and government.</jats:p> Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review Journal of Empirical Legal Studies |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1111/jels.12249 |
| facet_avail |
Online |
| finc_class_facet |
Rechtswissenschaft Pädagogik |
| format |
ElectronicArticle |
| fullrecord |
blob:ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTExMS9qZWxzLjEyMjQ5 |
| id |
ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTExMS9qZWxzLjEyMjQ5 |
| institution |
DE-Brt1 DE-D161 DE-Gla1 DE-Zi4 DE-15 DE-Pl11 DE-Rs1 DE-105 DE-14 DE-Ch1 DE-L229 DE-D275 DE-Bn3 |
| imprint |
Wiley, 2020 |
| imprint_str_mv |
Wiley, 2020 |
| issn |
1740-1453 1740-1461 |
| issn_str_mv |
1740-1453 1740-1461 |
| language |
English |
| mega_collection |
Wiley (CrossRef) |
| match_str |
ho2020improvingscientificjudgmentsinlawandgovernmentafieldexperimentofpatentpeerreview |
| publishDateSort |
2020 |
| publisher |
Wiley |
| recordtype |
ai |
| record_format |
ai |
| series |
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies |
| source_id |
49 |
| title |
Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review |
| title_unstemmed |
Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review |
| title_full |
Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review |
| title_fullStr |
Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review |
| title_short |
Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review |
| title_sort |
improving scientific judgments in law and government: a field experiment of patent peer review |
| topic |
Law Education |
| url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jels.12249 |
| publishDate |
2020 |
| physical |
190-223 |
| description |
<jats:p>Many have advocated for the expansion of peer review to improve scientific judgments in law and public policy. One such test case is the patent examination process, with numerous commentators arguing that scientific peer review can solve informational deficits in patent determinations. We present results from a novel randomized field experiment, carried out over the course of three years, in which 336 prominent scientific experts agreed to provide input on U.S. patent applications. Their input was edited for compliance with submission requirements and submitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) by our research team. We show that the intervention caused examiners to (1) increase search efforts and citations to the non‐patent (scientific) literature and (2) grant the application at lower rates in the first instance. However, results were substantially weaker and resource costs substantially higher than anticipated in the literature, highlighting significant challenges and questions of institutional design in bringing scientific expertise into law and government.</jats:p> |
| container_issue |
2 |
| container_start_page |
190 |
| container_title |
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies |
| container_volume |
17 |
| format_de105 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de14 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de15 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de520 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de540 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_dech1 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_ded117 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_degla1 |
E-Article |
| format_del152 |
Buch |
| format_del189 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_dezi4 |
Article |
| format_dezwi2 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_finc |
Article, E-Article |
| format_nrw |
Article, E-Article |
| _version_ |
1792333470161174534 |
| geogr_code |
not assigned |
| last_indexed |
2024-03-01T14:13:14.782Z |
| geogr_code_person |
not assigned |
| openURL |
url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fvufind.svn.sourceforge.net%3Agenerator&rft.title=Improving+Scientific+Judgments+in+Law+and+Government%3A+A+Field+Experiment+of+Patent+Peer+Review&rft.date=2020-06-01&genre=article&issn=1740-1461&volume=17&issue=2&spage=190&epage=223&pages=190-223&jtitle=Journal+of+Empirical+Legal+Studies&atitle=Improving+Scientific+Judgments+in+Law+and+Government%3A+A+Field+Experiment+of+Patent+Peer+Review&aulast=Ouellette&aufirst=Lisa+Larrimore&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1111%2Fjels.12249&rft.language%5B0%5D=eng |
| SOLR | |
| _version_ | 1792333470161174534 |
| author | Ho, Daniel E., Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore |
| author_facet | Ho, Daniel E., Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore, Ho, Daniel E., Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore |
| author_sort | ho, daniel e. |
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 190 |
| container_title | Journal of Empirical Legal Studies |
| container_volume | 17 |
| description | <jats:p>Many have advocated for the expansion of peer review to improve scientific judgments in law and public policy. One such test case is the patent examination process, with numerous commentators arguing that scientific peer review can solve informational deficits in patent determinations. We present results from a novel randomized field experiment, carried out over the course of three years, in which 336 prominent scientific experts agreed to provide input on U.S. patent applications. Their input was edited for compliance with submission requirements and submitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) by our research team. We show that the intervention caused examiners to (1) increase search efforts and citations to the non‐patent (scientific) literature and (2) grant the application at lower rates in the first instance. However, results were substantially weaker and resource costs substantially higher than anticipated in the literature, highlighting significant challenges and questions of institutional design in bringing scientific expertise into law and government.</jats:p> |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/jels.12249 |
| facet_avail | Online |
| finc_class_facet | Rechtswissenschaft, Pädagogik |
| format | ElectronicArticle |
| format_de105 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de14 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de15 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de520 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de540 | Article, E-Article |
| format_dech1 | Article, E-Article |
| format_ded117 | Article, E-Article |
| format_degla1 | E-Article |
| format_del152 | Buch |
| format_del189 | Article, E-Article |
| format_dezi4 | Article |
| format_dezwi2 | Article, E-Article |
| format_finc | Article, E-Article |
| format_nrw | Article, E-Article |
| geogr_code | not assigned |
| geogr_code_person | not assigned |
| id | ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTExMS9qZWxzLjEyMjQ5 |
| imprint | Wiley, 2020 |
| imprint_str_mv | Wiley, 2020 |
| institution | DE-Brt1, DE-D161, DE-Gla1, DE-Zi4, DE-15, DE-Pl11, DE-Rs1, DE-105, DE-14, DE-Ch1, DE-L229, DE-D275, DE-Bn3 |
| issn | 1740-1453, 1740-1461 |
| issn_str_mv | 1740-1453, 1740-1461 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-01T14:13:14.782Z |
| match_str | ho2020improvingscientificjudgmentsinlawandgovernmentafieldexperimentofpatentpeerreview |
| mega_collection | Wiley (CrossRef) |
| physical | 190-223 |
| publishDate | 2020 |
| publishDateSort | 2020 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | ai |
| recordtype | ai |
| series | Journal of Empirical Legal Studies |
| source_id | 49 |
| spelling | Ho, Daniel E. Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore 1740-1453 1740-1461 Wiley Law Education http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jels.12249 <jats:p>Many have advocated for the expansion of peer review to improve scientific judgments in law and public policy. One such test case is the patent examination process, with numerous commentators arguing that scientific peer review can solve informational deficits in patent determinations. We present results from a novel randomized field experiment, carried out over the course of three years, in which 336 prominent scientific experts agreed to provide input on U.S. patent applications. Their input was edited for compliance with submission requirements and submitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) by our research team. We show that the intervention caused examiners to (1) increase search efforts and citations to the non‐patent (scientific) literature and (2) grant the application at lower rates in the first instance. However, results were substantially weaker and resource costs substantially higher than anticipated in the literature, highlighting significant challenges and questions of institutional design in bringing scientific expertise into law and government.</jats:p> Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review Journal of Empirical Legal Studies |
| spellingShingle | Ho, Daniel E., Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review, Law, Education |
| title | Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review |
| title_full | Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review |
| title_fullStr | Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review |
| title_short | Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review |
| title_sort | improving scientific judgments in law and government: a field experiment of patent peer review |
| title_unstemmed | Improving Scientific Judgments in Law and Government: A Field Experiment of Patent Peer Review |
| topic | Law, Education |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jels.12249 |