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)
RUSTUM ROY: Alternatives to Review by Peers: A Contribution to the Theory of Scientific Choice
144 ROY: ALTERNATIVES TO REVIEW BY PEERS are ignored. The system flies in the face of the most elementary knowledge of human nature and presupposes a level of objectivity, disinterestedness and honesty, such as never obtained in any human group. Proposals, possibly with the literature thoroughly surveyed, the investigator's best ideas clearly expounded, and experiments specifically laid out, are sent to the set of colleagues who can most adequately evaluate the proposal but who also could use this same information in their own research. Moreover, in the present climate of opinion, a colleague who knows that he or she has the certain power to doom that proposal by a check mark in the "Fair" or "Good" category —even if accompanied, albeit inconsistently, by written praise —might well be inclined to use it. Both applicants and assessors know that this could give the reviewer enough time to perform the same or similar research. Applicants in rapidly developing fields, therefore, often employ the stratagem of applying for funds only for work that is already complete and is nearing submission for publication. The system of peer review ignores the crucial role of "change" and serendipity in science. Against all historical evidence, the system is based on the idea that genuine discovery can be planned in advance in an essay which meets with the approval of distant colleagues. Obviously, some outstanding work is done by persons who receive grants through peer review of their applications —after all, any system will deliver a good fraction of its funds to the best scientists. This is no vindication of the system. The defects of the system of review by peers may be summarised as follows: It disregards the multiplicity of systems of assessment and the possibility of combining their best features. It involves an enormous waste of the finite resource of the time of scientists and is inherently unfavourable to innovation. The schedule inherent in the process —often requiring some months to write an elaborate proposal and a waiting period of between six and twelve months —does not correspond with the actual schedule according to which creative scientists work, where the period from gestation of an idea to trying it out is much shorter. The intellectual momentum is thus often lost. The process encourages "competition" instead of co-operation and collaboration as the most effective mode of achieving the best scientific results. Alternative Systems of Allocating Funds for Research The only alternatives to the system of review by peers are not lotteries or the granting of equal amounts of financial support to every "qualified" scientist, although such experiments may be worthwhile. Scientists do not seem to wish to consider the more serious alternatives. Scientists who defend the status quo say that the peer-review system is the source of the success of American scientists, as demonstrated by such achievements as the winning of Nobel prizes. 6 Many scientists who are reasonably well sup6 Committee of Scientific Society Presidents, Testimony at Hearings on "NSF Peer Review" before the US House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Science and Technology (July 1975), p. 1,0%; also pp. 1,081. 1,088.
