Funding Science
The Real Defects of Peer Review and An Alternative To It
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11638123 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Rustum Roy (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1985 |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 73-81 |
| Publication date | 1985-07-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Science Technology & Human Values (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0162-2439 • E-ISSN: 1552-8251 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/016224398501000309 |
| OpenAlex | W2094679307 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 21 |
| References cited | 8 |
The existence of the procedure of peer-review of proposals (as distinguished from review of papers or completed works) is an extraordinary phenomenon. It has survived for some 30 years because of three factors. First, the inherent elitism of the sciences and its arcane linguistic barriers have enabled some scientists to claim that science should play by special rules. The rules that evolved, without any published analysis or forethought, then became a Kuhnian ruling of the science policy community and have been ritually affirmed as correct by most scientists and policymakers. Second, is now a generation of scientists who have experienced no other means of obtaining research funding and hence feel their entire research career to be at risk when any questions are raised about the peer review system. Third, the social scientists occasionally commissioned to examine the system have been co-opted by the paradigm of the hard science community and have yet to formulate even the most obvious questions that should be asked about any public system for distributing funds. From the perspective of national policy, their research has addressed trivial issues. In this article, therefore, I will first summarize the major criticisms of the procedures actually used by many proposal peer review systems. I will then show that, contrary to many scientists' assertion that there are no alternatives, many alternative systems do exist and are in use in this country and abroad. Moreover, such systems disburse at least 90% of the total money spent on
Peer review · Political science · Computer Science · Law · Psychology · scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Science of science
Scientific peer review
The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions
The Influence of Disciplinary Origins on Peer Review Normativities in a New Discipline
Funding Research Randomly
Is the panel fair? Evaluating panel compositions through network analysis. The case of research assessments in Italy
Interdisciplinary knowledge integration as a unique knowledge source for technology development and the role of funding allocation
The Ups and Downs of Peer Review
In the spirit of William Georgetti
Anthropology in and of the academy
Fairness as Appropriateness
Peer Review or Lottery? A Critical Analysis of Two Different Forms of Decision-making Mechanisms for Allocation of Research Grants
New Light on Old Boys
R&D Funding in India
Flipping the grant application review process
Unconceived alternatives and conservatism in science
Higher forms of nonsense
Legitimate judgment in art, the scientific world reversed? Maintaining critical distance in evaluation
Communicating and compromising on disciplinary expertise in the peer review of research proposals
Building Policy-Related Technical Communities
Beyond externalism. Exploring new directions in the history of archaeology
| Unique citing works | 21 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,54 |
| Citation span | 1987 - 2026 (40) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 21 |