Peer Review & Funding Cuts

Alexander Berezin berezin at MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA
Thu Jun 1 14:37:45 EST 1995


PEER REVIEW REFORM IS THE PRIORITY ISSUE,
WITHOUT IT THE FUNDING PROBLEM IS UNSOLVABLE

On Thu, 1 Jun 1995, Mark A Vivino wrote:

> 
> There is a great deal published that has no significant value. Is the
> solution to cut funding to solve this problem? Maybe, but maybe not. It is
> really the peer review process, where-in the number of publications is
> looking at for a variety of reasons. I personally can't stand those who
> make senseless publications, or constantly publish repeat information to
> renew grants, etc.

PRESENT PEER REVIEW SYSTEM IS THE MAJOR DRIVER BEHIND ALL THIS.
WE CAN'T FIGHT THE CONSEQUENCES (FUNDING CUTS) BEFORE THE
CAUSES (PEER REVIEW AND GRANTSMANSHIP) ARE ADDRESSED
See reference list below

> The only thing I can do is to not do this myself, and
> if reviewing anothers journal examine it for scientific merit. If there is
> a solution to the excessive publishing done I can guarantee that it is not
> so easy as to cut funding.
> Mark Vivino                            National Institutes of Health
> Biomedical Engineer                    DCRT/CBEL/IPRS, 12A/2033 
> mvivino at helix.nih.gov                  Bethesda, MD 20892-5624
> 
You are right - the major problem of publish-perish pressue
is in the peer review system. This is where the urgent reforms 
are badly needed. Whitout having them (or at least heaving them
started) the "funding cut" issue can not be even properly addressed,
less so solved. Here is a short biblography on peer review and
alternative funding models.
--------------------------------------------------

Berezin, A. A. (1993). The Superconducting Supercollider
     and peer review. Physics World (Dec.), 19. 

Berezin, A. A., R. Gordon & G. Hunter (1995). Anonymous peer   
     review and the QWERTY effect. Amer. Physics Soc. News,  
     March 1995. 

Berezin, A. A. & G. Hunter (1994). Myth of competition and NSERC
     policy of selectivity. Canadian Chemical News  46(3), 4-5. 

Forsdyke, D. R. (1983). Canadian medical research strategy for    
     the Eighties I. Damage-limitation or superelitism? Med.      
     Hypotheses  11, 141-145. 

Forsdyke, D. R. (1983). Canadian medical research strategy for    
     the Eighties II. Promise or performance as the basis for the 
     distribution of research funds? Med. Hypotheses  11,         
     147-156. 

Forsdyke, D. R. (1989). Sudden-death funding system. FASEB J.     
     3(10), 2221. 

Forsdyke, D. R. (1989). A systems analyst asks about AIDS         
     research funding. Lancet  2(December 9), 1382-1384. 

Forsdyke, D. R. (1991). Bicameral grant review: an alternative to 
     conventional peer review. FASEB J.  5, 2312-2314. 

Forsdyke, D. R. (1992). Bicameral grant review: how a systems     
     analyst with AIDS would reform research funding.
     Accountability in Research  3, 1-5. 

Forsdyke, D. R. (1993). On giraffes and peer review. FASEB J.  7, 
     619-621. 

Forsdyke, D. R.(1994). Authorship and misconduct. Nature 370, 91. 

Forsdyke, D. R. (1994). A theoretical basis for accepting         
     undergraduate academic record as a predictor of subsequent   
     success in a research career. Implications for peer review.  
     Accountability in Research  3, 269-274. 

Gordon, R. (1993). Grant agencies versus the search for truth. 
     Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance   
     2, 1-5. 

Gordon, R. (1993). Alternative reviews. University Affairs        
     (Assoc.of Universities and Colleges of Canada) 34(6), 26. 

Horrobin, D. (1981/1982). Peer review: Is the good the enemy of   
     the best?  J. Res. Communic. Stud.  3, 327-334. 

Horrobin, D. F. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review    
     and the suppression of innovation. J. Amer. Med. Assoc.      
     263(10), 1438-1441. 

Kenward, Michael. (1984). Peer review and the axe murderers",
     New Scientist, 102 (1412), p. 13 (31 May, 1984). 

McCutchen, Charles W. (1991). Peer Review: Treacherous Servant,
     Disastrous Master. Technology Review, vol. 94, #7,  
     (October 1991), 28-40.

Osmond, D. H. (1983). Malice's Wonderland: research funding and   
     peer review. J. Neurobiol.  14(2), 95-112.

Savan, Beth. (1990). Science Under Siege (The Myth of             
     Objectivity in Scientific Research, CBC Enterprises,         
     Toronto, 1988. 

Szent-Gyorgyi, Albert. [Nobel Prize laureate] (1972). 
     Dionysians and Apollonians, Science, 176, 966 (1972).
               
----------------------------------------------------------        
                           
                                    
  



More information about the Bioforum mailing list