In article <01GWX6F9NTDS0010S4 at UNCVX1.OIT.UNC.EDU>, JAF at UNCVX1.OIT.UNC.EDU (JEFF
FRELINGER) says:
>>Forsdyke provides a interesting new model for peer review.
>I personally like it, but don't think it would fundamentally
>change the outcomes. As a 2 NIH/1VA/ etc review veteran it is clear to
>me that a lot of weight is really given ot the past production period
>even if it never appears iun the pink sheets.
How can a lot of weight be given to past production if the basis of the
past production has not been carefully explained by the applicant? Just
counting papers and noting the calibre of the journal is copping out of the
reviewing process. Let the applicant spell out what he/she thinks has been
achieved, what funds were available to carry out the work, etc.
>More importantly
>this provides no mechanism for new investigators, or to nurture
>inovative reseach.
Few new investigators do not have some sort of track record. Initial fund
ing could be modest. Then at the next competion there would be a more valid
track record (performance/$ received; For fuller details see the references).
Innovative research is precisely what is losing out in the present system
Sincerely, Don Forsdyke. Discussion Leader. Bionet.Journals.Note
