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
148 ROY: ALTERNATIVES TO REVIEW BY PEERS Allocation of academic unit's research allotment to individuals from grants to unit: One of the immediate objections to this scheme by productive scientists is the concern that it will reward the lazy members of the unit. This must be guarded against and it is simple to do so. Many American universities already do what is proposed here in the reallocation of the "return of overhead" to departments and research units. Each unit will be required by the granting body to provide an "acceptable plan" so that individual scientists will benefit from their own productivity. Typically, such a plan might propose that 5 to 10 per cent of the funds will be retained at the college level for major equipment or projects for which any unit or individual can compete. Similarly 10 to 15 per cent of the funds might be retained at the departmental or unit level for commonly used equipment and technicians, etc. The 75 to 85 per cent would then be divided up within the department using the same —or slightly modified —formula so that the most "productive" members of the department would receive the greater part of this genuinely "unearmarked" support. Summary: This "formula" is, of course, very different from the many other such schemes proposed, in that it takes account of "productivity" in the field in which support is given, and in that it is flexible. Representative George Miller of California, chairman of the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Research, introduced his "formula funding" bill in 1968; his formula did not involve any measures of productivity at all. 9 In contrast, my formula draws on the most intensive and defensible review by peers and hence should immediately command the support of all those who believe in assessment by scientific peers. Review by peers is present through the fact that the vast majority of the publications occur in journals in which the referees are scientific peers. A published paper has undergone peer review which has assessed the quality of completed research. Although peer review of completed research has itself been attacked, 1 0 it is less vulnerable to criticism than the system of review by peers of proposed research projects. In any case, counting all publications instead of publications reviewed by peers in technical fields would make hardly any difference in the distribution over the country as a whole. The award of advanced degrees, except in some master's degrees, has been subject almost always to collective judgement by the department or the committee of examiners. A successful application for grants for research from "strong managers" in a mission-oriented agency is also conducted after a much more stringent review by highly qualified peers than any postal review of a proposal. Finally, by far the most stringent review by a peer is that which occurs when a research-manager in an industrial laboratory allocates $50,000 to support research at a university. The formula which I propose here can deal with the situation of the new, usually young member of the unit in several ways. Any unit which appoints * Representative George P. Miller, author of HR 35, Testimony at Hearings before US House of Representatives, 91st Session of Congress (February 1969). 1 0 Peters, D. P. and Ceci, S. J., op. cit.; Hamad, S., op. cit.
