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

185 RUDERI ER: T

IIK I'AI.

I ACY Ol PEER REVIEW 28. Sadeh, D.S., and Au, B.D., Nature, 224, 1291 (1969). Sadeh, D., Knowles, S., and Au, B., Science, 161, 567 (1968). 29. Ives, H.E., J. Opt. Soc. Amer., 28, 296 (1938). 30. Hafele, J.C. and Keating, R.E„Science, 177, 166 (1972). 31. Müller, R.A., Sei. Am., 238 (5), 64 (1978). 32. Easson, W.M., J. Clin. Psychiatry, 40, 331 (1979). 33. Hanson, H., Spec. Sei. Techn., 2, 472, 467 (1979). 34. Cole, J.R. and Cole, S., Social Stratification in Science, Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago (1973). 35. Maugh II, T.H., Science, 184, 1273 (1974). 36. For example, the Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation (U.S.) has for decades applied a creativity test having a correlation coefficient =0.9. Table 1 — Review Chronology Time (days) Date Appendix Content Route* Accum- n . ulated Uela

y 18 Feb. 1976 A Letter and MS au to ed 0 23 Feb. Received by Science 5 5 6 May B Letter + C + D ed to au 78 73 C Report of referee —' D Report of referee 17 May E Letter and MS au to ed 89 11 21 May Received by Science 93 4 20 August F Telephone call au to sec 184 91 1 October G Telephone call au to ed 226 42 15 October H Letter of rejection ed to au 240 14 21 October I Telephone call au to ed 246 6 22 October J Letter and MS au to ed 247 1 9 November Received by Science 265 18 11 Feb. 1977 K Letter au to ed 359 94 "Á February L Letter + M + N ed to au 372 13 M Report of referee N Report of referee 26 February 0 Letter + P au to ed 374 2 P Reply to N 11 March Q Letter ed to au 387 13 16 March R Letter au to ed 392 5 26 April S Letter ed to au 433 41 * au - author; ed - editor; sec - editor's secretary