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)
ALAN L. PORTER and FREDERICK A. ROSSINI: Peer Review of Interdisciplinary Research Proposals
160 PORTER «Sc ROSSINI: INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH PROPOSALS 160 "Delphi" process. 1 0 Mail reviewers would comment on a given proposal but not provide a numerical rating. These comments would be provided anonymously to the PI and to the other reviewers. The PI and reviewers would be given an opportunity to explain the proposed research more satisfactorily. Only after receiving these comments and amplifications would reviewers make a numerical rating. Such a process should improve reviewers' perspectives on the full project and resolve concerns arising from unfamiliarity with certain aspects. This study offers empirical evidence that reviewers of research proposals lean toward certain types of research. It documents a tendency to favor that which emanates from one's own discipline. We need to devise ways to avoid discriminating against crossdisciplinary proposals that lack an established peer group. Perhaps the funding agencies should consider the development of new mechanisms other than traditional peer review to support at least some interdisciplinary research. Russell, for example, describes a structure of research advisory and management committees to balance disciplinary and interdisciplinary research activities in the agricultural experiment station context. 1 1 Institutional grants and formula allotments certainly have problems, but they could be constructed so as to nourish interdisciplinary research. Combinations of peer review and other elements may offer advantages. Crossdisciplinary and, especially, interdisciplinary research are vital for scientific and technological innovation. For such research to succeed, it must survive the peer review process. Notes 1. Stevan Hamad, ed., "Peer Commentary on Peer Review" (special issuef The Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Volume 5, Number 2 (1982); Grover J. Whitehurst, "Interrater Agreement for )oumal Manuscript Reviews," American Psychologist, Volume 39 (1984): 22-28. 2. Grace M. Carter, Peer Review. Citations, and Biomedical Research Policy: NIH Granu to Medical School Faculty (R-1583-HEW], (Santa Monica, CA: The. Rand Corporation, 1974). 3. Alan L. Porter, Frederick A. Rossini, and Daryl E. Chubin, Interdisciplinary Research (Problcm-focussed. Multi-skilled Researchl—National Science foundation Experiences (Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology, 1984|. 4. See Gilbert W. Gillespie, Jr., Daryl E. Chubin, and George M. Kurzon, "Experience with NIH Peer Review: Researchers' Cynicism and Desire for Change," STHV. Volume 10, Issue 3. 5. Rustum Roy, "Peer Review of Proposals —Rationale, Practice and Performance," Bulletin of Science. Technology and Society. Volume 2 |1982|: 405422, also see the article by Rustum Roy, STHV Volume 10, Issue 3. 6. Harvey Brooks, "The Problems of Research Priorities," Daedalus, Volume 107, Number 2, Spring 1978: 171-190. 7. Ibid. 8. Halsey Royden, "'Risky' Investments," Science. Volume 209 (11 July 1980): 216, Alan L. Porter, Frederick A. Rossini, Daryl E. Chubin, and Terry Connolly, "Between Disciplines," Science, Volume 209 (29 August 1980|: 966. 9. Stephen Cole, Jonathan R. Cole, and Gary A. Simon, "Chance and Consensus in Peer Review," Science. Volume 214 (20 November 1981): 881-886. 10. Grace M. Carter, What We Know and Do Not Know About the NIH Peer Review System. N1878—RC/NIH (Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation, 19821. 11. Roy, op. cit. (1982). 12. Porter, Rossini, and Chubin, op. cit. 13. Frederick A. Rossini, Alan L. Porter, Patrick Kelly, and Daryl E. Chubin, "Interdisciplinary Integration within Technology Assessments," Knowledge, Volume 2 (1981): 503-528. 14. Brooks, op. cit. 15. Roy, op. cit. 16. Whitehurst, op. cit. 17. c.f. Carter, op. cit. (1982). 18. Martha G. Russell, "Peer Review in Interdisciplinary Research: Flexibility and Responsiveness," in Managing Interdisciplinary Research. Sidney R. Epton, Roy L. Payne, and Alan W. Pearson, eds., (Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, 19831, pp. 184-202. 19. Roy, op. cit. 20. c.f. Harold A. Linstone, and Murray Turoff, eds.. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975). 21. Russell, op. cit.
