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)

MARTIN RUDERFER: The Fallacy of Peer Review: Judgement without Science and a Case History

184 RUDER

I ER: T

IIK I'

A

I.I ACY O

l PEER REVIEW The long ignored psychological, effects of rejection and the attitudes and needs of authors and reviewers are now determinable by professionally designed opinion polls. A test of the Innovation Theorem suggested by this case history and the related psychological origins of resistance to innovation is another neglected area; the possibility of rating already published work on a fairly accurate evolutionary/revolutionary scale R allows evaluation of its important distribution function versus acceptance delay to permit measure of n and its significance as an overall measure of resistance to innovation in peer review. In summary, the basic conclusions from this study of a case history are: (i) The status of peer review as a scientific endeavour is in a very primitive state, (ii) It is imperative and feasible to vastly improve it. References 1. Christiansen, D„ IEEE Spectrum, 12 (11), 29 (1975). Burch, G.E., Amer. Heart J., 97, 265 (1979). 2. Asimov, I., Asimou's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Avon Books, New York (1976). 3. Examples of known cases are Hermann Grassmann and J.J. Waterston. See Zuckerman, H., and Merton, R.K..Phys. Today, 25 (2), 9 (1972). 4. Jones, R., New Sei., 61, 758 (1974). 5. Denim, S., New Sei., 64, 925 (1974). 6. Ruderfer, M., Spec. Sei. Techn., 1, 219 (1978). 7. Zuckerman, H.A. and Merton, R.K., Minerva, 9, 66 (1971). 8. Zuckerman, H.A. and Merton, R.K., Phys. Today, 24 (7), 28 (1971). 9. Azbel, M., Phys. Today, 31 (12), 82 (1978); 32 (10), 96 (1979). 10. Adair, R.K., Trigg, G.L. and Wells, G.L., Phys. Today, 31 (12), 82 (1978). 11. Adair, R.K., Phys. Today, 32 (10), 101 (1979). Strandberg, M.W.P., Ibid., 98. Gordon, R.A., Ibid, 31 (10), 81 (1978); 32 (4), 13 (1.979). Kumar, K.,Ibid, 32 (4), 13 (1979). Stumpf, W.E

..Science, 207, 822 (1980). 12. Commoner, B., Hosp. Prac., 13 (11), 25 (1978). Curran, G.L., Ibid., 14 (2), 17 (1979). 13. Soffer, A., Chest, 75, 295 (1979). 14. Cole, J.R. and Cole. S., Science, 178, 368 (1972), p.372. 15. Boyd, R„ Science, 177, 516 (1972). 16. Cook, R.E., Science, 198, 22 (1977). Baker, V.R., Ibid., 202, 1249 (1978). Yalow, R.S., Ibid., 200, 1236 (1978). Wade, N

„Ibid., 201, 31 (1978). 17. Ruderfer, M., Spec. Sei. Techn., 2, 387 (1979). 18. Ruderfer, M., Spec. Sei. Techn., 2, 385 (1979). 19. Ruderfer, M., Spec. Sei. Techn., 2, 405 (1979). 20. Ruderfer, M., Spec. Sei. Techn., 3, 231 (1980). 21. Cannon, W.H. and Jensen, O.G., Science, 188, 317 (1975). 22. Pound, R.V., and Vetterling, W.T., Science, 191, 489 (1976). Allan, D.W., Mungall, A.G. and Wrinkler, G.M.R., Ibid., p.490. 23. Penny, C.J.A., Smith, H.M., and Wilkins, G.A., Science, 191, 489 (1976). 24. Cannon, W.H. and Jensen, O.G., Science, 191, 490 (1976). 25. Barber, B., Science, 134, 596 (1961). 26. Shapiro, I.S., Sou. Phys. Uspekhi, 15, 651 (1973); Russian original in Usp. Fiz. Nauk, 108, 319 (1972). 27. Haliam, A., Sei. Am.. 232 (2), 88 (1975).