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
117 MITROFF & CHUBIN: PEER REVIEW AT THE NSF one of the pivotal issues in the peer review debate: whether or not the system is biased against innovative ideas. 3 1 The responses to these three questions were unequivocal: 52 percent of the reviewers and 61 percent of the applicants felt that the proposal from the well-known institution had a better chance of being funded; 29 percent of the reviewers and 16 percent of the applicants felt both had an equal chance; less than 3 percent of each group felt the proposal from the lesser-known institution had a better chance. The responses to the other two questions were similar: the older PI and the 'mainstream' proposal,' respectively, were favoured. It is particularly instructive to compare the responses of applicants from (a) institutions that are among the top 20 in securing federal research funds 3 2 with (b) those located at other PhD granting institutions. Whereas 28 percent of the applicants from the top 20 believed that proposals from both the lesser and the well-known institution have an equal chance of being funded, only 14 percent of the applicants from the other institutions believe this to be the case. Even more revealing is that 39 percent of the 'top 20' applicants believe the proposal from the well-known institution has a better chance, whereas 63 percent of the applicants from the other institutions believe that the well-known institution fares better in the competition. 3 3 Finally, how do the respondents regard the confidentiality or openness of the peer review process? Hensler summarizes her respondents' views as follows: A substantial majority of reviewers and applicants approve of NSF's new policy of providing verbatim review comments to applicants. About two-thirds of the applicants surveyed indicate they personally would have found verbatim review comments useful the last time they submited a proposal to NSF. Respondents who favor a policy of providing verbatim reviews to applicants say the reviews help applicants to understand the reasons for reviewers' reactions, permit applicants to judge reviewers' competence and provide a possible basis for rebutting reviews. A minority of reviewers — nineteen percent — would approve of a policy of identifying reviewers to applicants and thirty-five percent say they would refuse to continue as reviewers if such a policy were adopted. But close to one-third of the applicants would approve of such a policy. Among the applicants who have not also served as reviewers recently more than forty percent would approve of identifying reviewers. Applicants from more recent academic generations and those affiliated with academic institutions which are not among the top twenty m federal research funding are more likely to approve of identifying reviewers to applicants, than others. Applicants with recent or previously
