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

TABLE 3 Relation of the Hensler and the Cole Studies to the NSF Peer Review Dialectic Evidence in Support or Denial of Assumptions Basic Assumptions and/or Contentions (see Table 1) PRO the Current System CON the Current System Assumption 1. Current system is open, free from bias 1. Current system is closed, contains bias Evidence: Supporting: similarity of characteristics of reviewers and applicants; vast majority of respondents see system as sound; believe they were treated fairly. Denying: extremely few respondents see current systems as possessing major flaws or believe they were treated unfairly. Status of evidence Weak on both sides of argument; insufficiency of beliefs per se to determine actual operation of system. Assumption 2. System encourages innovative ideas 2. System blocks innovative ideas Evidence: Denial: less than 7 percent of respondents believe a proposal which challenges 'mainstream' has a better chance of being funded; roughly 20 percent believe both have an equal chance. Support: nearly half of" respondents believe a 'mainstream' proposal has a better chance of being funded. Status Weak; insufficiency of data to establish operation of system.