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

124 MITROFF & CHUBIN: PEER REVIEW AT THE NSF Until this is done, the Cole data and analysis cannot be used to ignore or deny the relevance of personal or cognitive attributes in the operation and understanding of peer review. Finally, we feel compelled to remark that despite Cole's claim of 'complete autonomy from NSF in conducting' the research,

5

6 the research they have reported betrays a commitment to show that even where peer review is not equitable within NSF, the inequity is for the good of science;

5

7 put another way, inequity is functional for the maintenance of the system — and peer review is the tool of this handiwork. Though they began with good intentions, Cole and his associates may have done more to defend the status quo than to inform the debate on peer review: their evidence has yet to sustain the weight of their conclusions. We eagerly await their complete results. Further Reflections on the Debate Suppose that there existed a method of establishing 'conclusively' whether the peer review system was either biased or unbiased.

5

8 If we take the Hensler findings at face value, then we must acknowledge that a significant number of scientists believe that the NSF peer review system is biased, while another significant number believe that it is not biased. One could then construct, in idealtypical fashion, the contingencies represented in Table 2, where the rows represent the beliefs or judgments of scientists as to whether the NSF peer review system is perceived as biased or unbiased. TABLE 2 Beliefs Versus System States In Peer Review STATE OF SYSTEM Unbiased Biased Unbiased I II BELIEF Correct Problematic OF SCIENTIST IV III Biased Problematic Correct