Peer review and R2O
![Image](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsPMHENpgN9B1JAcFs836gRdUYvvvbsTSkeq1ooqwX_lboDnQJZpcM_LZLn41HswdUvMHep0-kprUh3ZXvzmEBYKCXlu_Tnqj1bQuA5ejqGIW_VuOMG8GSddlbwiYMIFG3uZBPvN5cckE5/w640-h360/20170205_210302.jpg)
One area of increasing confusion is the difference between the scientific peer review and research to operations processes, and their relative value for a new research byproduct. To some extent, that value depends on the organization or enterprise. But peer review and R2O are two separate processes, and the comparison between them is a matter of “apples and oranges”. They both have important roles but serve different purposes. Scientific peer review exists to make sure that a given research byproduct is valid in the realm of science from which it was derived. While science evolves, the peer review process has a defined starting and ending point, where the end is usually a publication that can be further scrutinized by the broader scientific community. The R2O process, typically internal to an organization, evolves with the progress of a research byproduct and sometimes does not reach a conclusion as it iterates over the lifecycle of a byproduct in operational status. Allow me to illust