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)
EUGENE GARFIELD: Refereeing and Peer Review. Part 3. How the Peer Review of Research-Grant Proposals Works and What Scientists Say About It
30 GARFIELD: REFEREEING AND PEER REVIEW, PART 1 tists, both consciously and unconsciously, to groom research results to fit the expectations of the funding agency, rather than allowing the work its own head. 2 4 Other complaints about peer review closely resemble those made concerning the refereeing of manuscripts prior to publication, which were discussed in detail in Part 2 of this essay. 2 Just as authors complain of referee bias and old-boy networks that conspire to keep new, challenging ideas out of print, so too do applicants for research grants charge that young or new scientists with little or no track record don't get a fair shake in competition with older, more established scientists and that grant-review committees are hesitant to risk funds on innovative or speculative proposals. 1 82 7 And, like authors, grant applicants also fear that those who review their work may end up stealing from it as well. 2 4 Summarizing the workings of the complex peer-review systems in the US and some parts of Europe is not a simple task. Equally difficult is the job of condensing the dissatisfactions with peer review, which are mainly reflected in anecdotal complaints about the current US system. The final part of this series will focus on research findings concerning grant-review systems and suggestions for improvements. ***** My thanks to Stephen A. Bonaduce and Terri Freedman for their help in the preparation of this essay. REFERENCES 1. Garfield E. Refereeing and peer review. Part I. Opinion and conjecture on the effectiveness of refereeing. Current Contents (31):3-11, 4 August 1986. 2. . Refereeing and peer review. Part 2. The research on refereeing and alternatives lo the present system Current Contents (32):3-12, II August 1986 3. Zuckerrnan H St Merton R K. Patterns of evaluation in science: instrtutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva 9:66-100, 1971. (Reprinted as: Institutionalized patterns of evaluation in science. (Merton R K.) The sociology of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1973. p. 460-96. J 4 Kronick D A. Authorship and authority in the scientific periodicals of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Libr Quart. 48:255-75, 1978 5. Levy J A. Peer review: the continual need for reassessment. Cancer Invest. 2:311-20, 1984. 6. Public Health Service Act. (PL 410, 1 July 1944). United Stales Statutes at Large. 58. p. 682-711. 7 National Institutes of Health. 1983 NIH almanac. Bethesda. MO: NIH. 1983. p. 5. NIH Pub!. No. 83-5. 8. Roy R. Funding science: the real defects of peer review and an alternative to it. Sei. Techno!. Hum. Vat. 10(3):73-8I, 1985. 9 Atkinson R C St Blanpied W A. Peer review and the public interes!. Issues Sei. Technol. 1(4): 101-14, 1985. 10. Raub W F. Personal communication 12 December 1986 11 Powledge T M. NIH's Raub on misconduct. The Scientist 15 December 1986. p. 18-9 12. Garfield E. Introducing The Scientist: at Last, a newspaper for the science professional. Current Contents (29) 3-6) 21 July 1986. 13 . The Scientist how ii all began Current Contents (33):3-6, 18 August 1986 14 Mathewson J. More controversy over peer review. Set. News 128:71, 1985. 15. Sinshclmer R L. Letter lo editor. (Peer review and the public interest.) Issues Sei. Technot. 2(1):9-I0. 1985. 16. Long J. Funding bill stirs academic research issue. Chem. Eng. News 64{24):12, 1986. 17. Roy R. Personal communication. 29 November 1986. 18 Sanders H J. Peer review How well is it working? Chem. Eng. News 60(11):32-43. 1982 19 Kirsclutein R L, Akers R P. Brooks G T, Fretts C A, Gary N D, Gotdwater W H, Green J G. Solowey M, Kaufman A A, Raub W F, Russell G F, Rtseberg R J, Schlafflno S S 4k Wilson K S. Grants peer review: report to the director. NIH. Phase 1. Washington, DC: NIH, 1976. 226 p. 20. Cole S, Rubin L St Cole J R. Peer review in the National Science Foundation: phase one of a study. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1978. 193 p. 21 Committee ou Science and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences. Research in Europe and the United Slates. (National Science Foundation) The 5-year outlook on science and technology, 1981. Washington. DC: NSF. 1981. Vol. I. p. 255-84. 22. Roy R. Alternatives to review by peers: a contribution to the theory of scientific choice. Minerva 22:316-26, 1984. 23 CuUiton B J. Fine-tuning peer review. Science 226:1401, 1984 24 Osmond D H. Malice's Wonderland: research funding and peer review. J. Neurobiol. 14:95-112, 1983. 25. Yalow R S. Peer review: some suggestions. Chem Eng. News 57(40):5, 1979. 26. . Peer review and scientific revolutions. Biol. Psychiax. 21:1-2, 1986. 27. Hormhin D F. Referees and research administrators: barriers lo scientific research? Brit. Med. J. 2:216-8, 1974.
