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 4. Research on the Peer Review of Grant Proposals and Suggestions for Improvement

37 GARFIELD: REFEREEING AND PEER REVIEW, PART 1 REFERENCES 1. Garfield E. Refereeing and peer review. Part I. Opinion and conjecture on the effectiveness of refereeing. Current Contents (31):3-I1, 4 August 1986. 2. . Refereeing and peer review. Part 2. The research on refereeing and alternatives to the present system. Current Contents (32):3-12, 11 August 1986. 3 . . Refereeing and peer review. Part 3. How the peer review of research-grant proposals works and what scientists say about it. Current Contents (4):3-8, 26 January 1987. 4. Cole S, Rubin L & Cole J R. Peer review in the National Science Foundation: phase one of a study: Washington. DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1978. 193 p. 5. Cole J R, Cole S & the Committee on Science and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences. Peer review in the National Science Foundation: phase two of a study. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1981. 106 p. 6. Cole J R. Personal communication. 13 November 1986. 7. Cole S, Cole J R & Simon G A. Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 214:881-6, 1981. 8. Zuckerman H & Merton R K. Patterns of evaluation in science: institutionalisation, 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 ] 9. Peters D P It Ceci S J. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles. submitted again. Behav. Brain Sei. 5:187-95, 1982. 10. Whhehurst G J. Interrater agreement for journal manuscript reviews. Amer. Psychol. 39:22-8, 1984. 11. Boddl T. Evaluation of peer review draws mixed reactions. Bioscience 32:10-2, 1982. 12 Kirschstein R L, Aken R P, Brooks G T, Fretts C A, Gary N D, Goldwater W H, Green J G, Solowey M, Kaufman A A, Raub W F, Russell G F, Rise berg R J, Schiaffino S S & Wilson K S. Grants peer review: report to the director, NIH. Phase I. Washington, IX: NIH, 1976. 226 p 13. NIH grants peer review study team: establishment. (FR Doc. 75-23368). Fed. Reg. 40:40870, 1975. 14. Raub W F. Personal communication. 12 December 1986. 15. Culliton B J. NIH starts new grants program. Science 232:566, 1986. 16. Gilleapie G W, Chubin D E & Kurzon G M. Experience with NIH peer review: researchers' cynicism and desire for change. Sei. TechnoI. Hum. Vol. 10(3) 44-54, 1985. 17. Porter A L & Rossini F A. Peer review of interdisciplinary research proposals. Sei. Technol. Hum. Vol. l<X3):33-8, 1985. 18. Russell A S, Thorn B D & Grace M. Peer review: a simplified approach. J. Rheumatol. 10:479-81, 1983. 19. Klahr D. Insiders, outsiders, and efficiency in a National Science Foundation panel. Amer. Psychol. 40:148-54, 1985. 20 Sanders H J. Peer review. How well is it working? Chem. Eng. News 60(11):32-43, 1982. 21. Yalow R S. Peer review and scientific revolutions. Biol. Psychiat. 21:1-2, 1986. 22. . Peer review: some suggestions. Chem. Eng. News 57(40):5, 1979. 23. Roy R. An alternative funding mechanism. Science 211:1377, 1981. 24 . . Personal communication. 29 November 1986. 25 . . Funding science: the real defects of peer review and an alternative to it. Sei. Technol Hum. Vol. 10(3):73-81, 1985. 26 . . Alternatives to review by peers: a contribution to the theory of scientific choice. Minerva 22:316-26, 1984. 27. Hirsch H R. A proposal for per capita distribution of research funds with administrative flexibility. 1983 . 5 p. (Unpublished paper.) 28. Liebman J C. Letter to editor. (Alternative to peer review?) Science 212:1336, 1981. 29. McCreery R L. Letter to editor. (Alternative to peer review?) Science 212:1336, 1981. 30. Kalt M R. Letter to editor. (Alternative lo peer review?) Science 212:1336-7, 1981. 31. Roy R. Letter to editor. (Alternative to peer review?) Science 212:1338-9, 1981. 32. Lederberg J. Personal communication. 17 August 1986. 33. Apirion D. Letter to editor. (Research funding and the peer-review system.) Fed. Proc. 38:2649-50, 1979. 34. Osmond D H. Malice's Wonderland: research funding and peer review. J. Neurobioi. 14:95-112, 1983 35. Atkinson R C & Blanpied W A. Peer review and the public interest. Issues Sei. Technol. 1(4): 101-14, 1985.