Braun Tibor, Schubert András (szerk.): Szakértői bírálat (peer review) a tudományos kutatásban : Válogatott tanulmányok a téma szakirodalmából (A MTAK Informatikai És Tudományelemzési Sorozata 7., 1993)

IAN I. MITROFF and DARYL E. CHUBIN: Peer Review at the NSF: A Dialectical Policy Analysis

IAN I. MITROFF AND DARYL E. CHUBIN: Peer Review at the NSF: A Dialectical Policy Analysis Social Studies of Science, 9 (1979) 199-232 The controversy over peer review is viewed as a dialectic. The arguments espoused by advocates and critics of the system wherein research proposals are evaluated by advisors to funding agencies are reviewed, particularly the findings of two recent studies of peer review at the National Science Foundation. These findings seem to establish merit as the primary factor in the recommendations of peer reviewers to fund proposals. The findings also beg several questions as to 'acceptable' definitions of meritoriousness and innovativeness, the links among belief, perception, and evaluation, and the sanctioned operation of particularistic factors in the review process. Future studies, it is suggested, must include psychological variables — especially measurement of applicants' and reviewers' 'cognitive styles' — if data are to narrow gaps in knowledge and inform the debate itself. Finally, three models which undergird views of peer review are discussed and related to key social issues in the debate. In recent years, scientific controversies have, with growing regularity, attracted public scrutiny and debate. The controversy over the nature and functioning of the peer review system is an outstanding case in point. That this controversy strikes to the heart of science's most sacred and cherished values — institutional and political autonomy vis-a-vis the external society — may account for the intensity of the debate.

1 That the debate did not reverberate through the American scientific community at large until 1975, however, suggests two complementary realities that may have forestalled the definition of peer review as a pressing and researchable problem: (1) the sanguinity of scientists during the halcyon years of growth in federal funding for R&D and graduate training;

2 and (2) the tenacity of certain values which undergird the