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

135 MITROFF & CHUBIN: PEER REVIEW AT THE NSF 17. Gustafson, op. cit. note I, 1060 (our italics). 18. Subcommittee, op. cit. note 13, 571 (our italics). 19. Ibid., 579-80. 20. Ibid., 2. 21. Ibid., 25. 22. Ibid.s'27. 23. Ibid., 41. 24. Ibid., 43. 25. D. Hensler, 'Perceptions of the National Science Foundation Peer Review Process: A Report on a Survey of NSF Reviewers and Applicants', Prepared for the Committee on Peer Review, National Science Board, and the Committee on Science and Technology, US House of Representatives (Washington, DC: NSF 77-33, December 1976); R. Abel, 'Applicants' and Reviewers' Assessments of the NSF Peer Review Process', International NSF draft paper (Washington, DC: NSF, November 1976). 26. S. Cole, L. Rubin and J. R. Cole, 'Peer Review and the Support of Science', Scientific American, Vol. 237 (October 1977), 34-41. This article is an interim report on the project, which is still in progress (see note 41, below). 27. One of us (I.I.M.) was asked to undertake such a review for the Office of Planning and Policy Analysis, National Science Foundation, under Contract No. OM, Order No. 77-SP-0370. 28. Hensler, op. cit. note 25, 15-18, quote on 17. 29. Ibid., 23. 30. Ibid., iv. Furthermore, as Hensler explains (considering both successful and unsuccessful applicants), principal investigators' evaluations of the appropriateness of the review procedures used are related to disposition of the proposal. But even among those whose proposals were declin­ed, half feel the procedures were appropriate. A majority of unsuccessful ap­plicants feel that the decision to decline was unfair but a substantial proportion — forty-three percent — feel that [even this] decision was fair. About 84 percent of declinees who thought the decision was unfair, say they would have appealed the decision if a formal appeals process had existed. Assessments of ap­propriateness of procedures and fairness of the funding decision do not appear to be related to academic generation, institutional affiliation or region. However, those who have served as NSF reviewers or who have received NSF grants in the past are more likely to evaluate their most recent experience positively — even if they were turned down — than those with less successful ex­perience dealing with NSF . . . About 73 percent of the Pis, including both grantees and declinees, would favor NSF adopting a formal appeals system. The reason for supporting such a system which is volunteered most frequently is that it would provide a remedy for mistakes and misjudgments; the leading reason for opposing it is that it will further bureaucratize and burden the review process, (ibid., v-vi). 31. As many writers have indicated, what is perceived as an innovative idea is relative to time and place in any research community. The line separating innovation from charlatanism or, in the lexicon of the exemplary 'science studies' literature, the difference between transgressions of cognitive norms and true anomalies, is fine in­deed. Our view is that 'excessively' innovative ideas will so challenge the paradigmatic foundations of a research area that the innovators and their ideas

Next

/
Oldalképek
Tartalom