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
118 MITROFF & CHUBIN: PEER REVIEW AT THE NSF unsuccessful experience obtaining NSF funds are most likely to approve of identifying reviewers. Those who disapprove of identifying reviewers feel that this would lead to lower quality reviews, more difficulty securing participation of reviewers and cause bad feelings among colleagues in the scientific community, among other results. 3 4 Reactions to the Hensler Study While the Hensler survey was the first to document so extensively the perceptions of scientists who had participated in the NSF peer review process, the study was not without its limitations (as Hensler openly acknowledges). For example, the study was initiated by a NSF committee the composition of which is not specified in the report. 3 3 Originally, the committee was interested in the views of three groups: NSF peer reviewers, recent applicants for NSF funds, and researchers who had served NSF neither as reviewers nor as recent applicants. It is reported that after some consideration, the Committee decided that it was not feasible to survey the latter group. But by drawing from the Foundation's files of reviews and proposal actions, it was possible to select two independent samples of recent NSF reviewers and applicants. 3 6 We have no way of ascertaining on what grounds it was decided 'not feasible' to survey the opinions of researchers who have neither served as reviewers for NSF proposals nor applied recently for NSF funds. Insofar as the Hensler study demonstrates dramatically the link between one's experiences with and perceptions of the NSF system, it would seem desirable to pursue this feasibility question. We shall argue later that it would seem not only highly desirable but imperative to survey the 'null' group: those who, for whatever reasons, have chosen not to interact with NSF or whose interaction has not been sought by NSF. What are the demographic characteristics of those scientists not interacting with NSF? What are the reasons they give for not doing so? What reasons would NSF personnel give? A study of the attitudes of this null group would seem necessary before general conclusions about the equity of NSF's peer review system can be drawn. 3 7 Because the Hensler survey does not 'tell us all that we would like to know about NSF reviewers' and applicants' experiences with the
