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
111 MITROFF & CHUBIN: PEER REVIEW AT THE NSF TABLE 1 A Dialectical Representation of the Current System of NSF Peer Review Basic Assumptions and/or Contentions PRO the Current System 1. The current system is open; it is free from substantial bias. 2. The system leans over backwards in favour of the maverick. 3. It is possible for programme managers to manipulate the system to get the review they want but this is not being done. 4. Proposals should not be 'blind reviewed' since it is not only difficult to conceal completely the identity of a proposer but it is 'a significant factor in determining the likelihood of success of a project'. 5. Reviewers should not be selected at random because the most knowledgeable persons would thus be eliminated. 6. '... the system should be designed on the presumption that programme managers and reviewers are, on the whole, honest and ethical, but that vigilance should be maintained over the system in such a way as to insure that unscrupulous acts are rare.' CON the Current System 1. The current system is closed; it contains substantial bias ('an incestuous buddy system') 2. There is a natural bias against revolutionary and innovative ideas. 3. Programme managers do manipulate the system to get the reviews they want. 4. Proposals should be'blind reviewed' so that 'the reviewer cannot play favourites or be biased by his knowledge or ignorance of the proposer'. 5. Reviewers should be selected at because this would 'eliminate the possibility of the programme manager purposefully biasing the review through selecting reviewers whose opinions he can predict'. 6. It is 'best to design decisionmaking systems defensively, i.e., on the presumption that the proportion of dishonest or unscrupulous people among (NSF) programme managers and reviewers is high enough to cause severe problems if those people have a significant opportunity to turn the system to their advantage.'
