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 (continued) PRO the Current System CON the Current System Assumption Status 3. Programme managers do not manipulate 3. Programme managers do manipulate reviews reviews Not addressed explicitly in Hensler study; data collected, not reported by Cole Assumption Status Assumption Evidence: Status 4. Proposal should not be blind reviewed 4. Proposals should be blind reviewed Not addressed explicitly by Hensler; institutionalization of particularistic factors into review process recognized by Cole. 5. Reviewers should not be selected at random 5. Reviewers should be selected at random Support: only 15 percent of respondents at most believe in randomization; nearly 65 percent believe in some form of judgment sampling in conjunction with NSF staff Weak; insufficiency of beliefs to warrant procedural change. Support: roughly 31 percent believe in some form of randomization and judgment sampling Assumption Status 6. System should be designed defensively Not tested for explicitly; charge of 'old boy-ism' refuted, according to Cole. 6. System should be designed on presumption of honesty