论文信息 - Grants Peer Review in Theory and Practice

Grants Peer Review in Theory and Practice

Grants peer review is a family of ex ante methods used by federal agencies to select research proposalsforfunding. This article draws on Chubin and Hackett's 1990 book, Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy, to examine both the assumptions and theory underlying peer review as an evaluation methodology and the issues that arise in the operation of peer-based systems at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The article discusses criticisms of peer review, the various criteria that agencies must balance in interpreting evaluations of expert peers, and outstanding issues to be addressed in the refinement and reform of peer review systems. The article concludes with suggestions on how to redress the shortcomings of peer review in decision making, especially the allocation of scarce public monies.

Daryl E. Chubin | D. Chubin

[1] Richard C. Atkinson,et al. Peer Review and the Public Interest. , 1985 .

[2] Alvin M. Weinberg. Reflections on Big Science , 1967 .

[3] Steven L. Goldman,et al. Technology and Human Values , 1981 .

[4] D. Chubin,et al. Peerless Science: Peer Review and U. S. Science Policy , 1990 .

[5] H. Brooks. The Problem of Research Priorities , 1978 .

[6] Scientific progress: an interim report , 1986 .

[7] J. R. Cole,et al. Chance and consensus in peer review. , 1981, Science.

[8] Daryl E. Chubin,et al. Peer Review and Public Policy , 1985 .

[9] E. Marshall. When does intellectual passion become conflict of interest? , 1992, Science.

[10] Rustum Roy,et al. Funding Science: The Real Defects of Peer Review and An Alternative To It , 1985 .

[11] E. Holtzman,et al. The Cancer Mission: Social Contexts of Biomedical Research , 1980 .

[12] D. Chubin,et al. Commentary: On the Virtues of Self-Study , 1989 .

[13] Herbert Michaelson. : Lost at the Frontier: U.S. Science and Technology Policy Adrift , 1986 .