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 7. Applicants should not know reviewers' identity 7. Applicants should know reviewers' identify Evidence: Support: roughly 40-50 percent of respondents feel knowing name would make no difference; 12-20 percent feel comments would be less useful Support: 30-40 percent feel comments would be more useful if one knew name Status Weak; again, insufficiency of beliefs to warrant procedural change. Assumption 8. There should not be formal appeal procedures 8. There should be formal appeal procedures Evidence: Support: feeling that a formal process will further bureaucratize system Support: about 73 percent of applicants favour a formal appeals system as a remedy for mistakes Status Endorsement of idea by Hensler; no consideration of procedures. Assumption 9. NSF should fund less research at 9. NSF should fund more research at colleges and colleges and less prestigious universities less prestigious universities Status 'Rich get richer' hypothesis supported in part by Cole data: researchers at more prestigious institutions and with track record slightly favoured in the review process.