Government User survey okays NSF peer review system The National Science Foundation's peer Twenty-seven per cent of the applicants review system was a hot issue in Congress had received no NSF funding, and 59% of a couple of years ago. Charges were levied them also had served NSF as either inbefore Congressional committees and on dependent ad hoc mail reviewers or rethe House and Senate floors that peer view panel members during the two prereview at NSF was an "incestuous buddy vious years. system," an "old boys" network, that too Among the ad hoc reviewers responding much power was allotted to NSF program to the survey, 45.5% said NSF has a sound managers, and that NSF's grant man- peer review mechanism, 50.1% termed it agement system was stifling science an acceptable mechanism with some through secrecy and cronyism. The House weaknesses, and only 4.4% termed it went so far as to vote to make all NSF questionable with many weaknesses. To grant awards subject to Congressional no one's surprise, however, it turns out approval. that whether the applicants' proposals The whole controversy was apparently have been accepted or rejected detera tempest in a teapot with Congress get- mined, to a large extent, their view of the ting much more worked up about the appropriateness of review procedures process than the scientists who are part of used. Thus, 92.2% of the successful apit either as applicants for funding or re- plicants and 51.4% of the unsuccessful viewers. Just-released results of a survey applicants said the review procedures of NSF reviewers and grant applicants were appropriate. And although a mashow that they think the peer review jority of the unsuccessful applicants think system is an appropriate mechanism for that the decision to decline their proposal making funding decisions, that it works was unfair, 43% said that the rejection was quite well and needs few, if any, changes. fair. The one change that is recommended by Ad hoc reviewers most frequently almost all applicants involves setting up mentioned lack of opportunity for disformal procedures for appealing adverse cussion among reviewers as the major funding decisions. weakness of the ad hoc mail review. More The survey was initiated in late 1975 as than 30% of all negative responses from a joint effort by the House Subcommittee reviewers were concerned with the issue on Science, Research & Technology and of bias. Although no one particular type the National Science Board. Question- of bias was mentioned by a substantial naires were sent to 1552 individuals who portion of reviewers, a small percentage had done reviews for NSF in fiscal 1974 cited bias against young professionals and to 3256 applicants who had submitted (4%) and certain institutions or regions proposals for funding in fiscal 1975. (2.5%) and favoritism toward friends Among the applicants were 1075 indi- (11%) or against enemies (4%) as possible viduals whose most recent proposal to weaknesses in the system. Of the reviewNSF had been declined. The response ers, 11% cited bias as a general problem. rate from both groups was unusually high, Applicants cited the fact that reviewers with 82.4% of the reviewers and 85.3% of were not well matched to proposals, were the applicants returning completed incompetent, and/or didn't spend enough time on each proposal, and lack of feedquestionnaires. Not surprisingly, most of the respon- back as major weaknesses in the peer view dents have doctoral degrees. About half system. Less than 10% of the applicants of each group received their degrees at specifically mentioned bias as a problem; Ph.D.-granting institutions that are cur- of these about half referred to bias against rently among the top 20, in amount of certain regions and institutions and half federal research funds received annually. to bias against innovative proposals. Collectively, the reviewers represent 138 On the other hand, more than half of different alma maters; applicants repre- both reviewers and applicants think that sent 242. About 79% of each group are the NSF peer review process, given two employed at a Ph.D.-granting institution. equally good proposals, would favor a One quarter of the reviewers and one fifth proposal from a well-known institution of the applicants are currently at univer- over one from a less-known institution; a sities that were among the top 20 in fed- proposal from an older well-established eral research funding in fiscal 1974. applicant over one from a young not-yetEighteen per cent of the applicants, established applicant; and a proposal in compared to 7% of reviewers, are at in- the mainstream of scientific thought over stitutions with limited Ph.D.-granting one that challenges the mainstream. programs or four-year academic institu- About 15% of the applicants and 20% of tions. Half of the reviewers said that they the reviewers thought that both proposals had received funding from NSF during would have an equal chance. the past five years, as did 70% of the apDespite weaknesses in the system, a plicants. Only 25% of the reviewers report large majority of reviewers (63%) and that their only research funding during applicants (59%) thought that some type this period came from NSF, as compared of peer review should be required of all to almost 40% of the applicants. Continued on page 21 16
C&ENMay30, 1977
ACS MEMBERS: "fell your friends and colleagues about this special offer! NON MEMBERS: lake advantage of this money-savins opportunity!
Here is a chance to join the American Chemical Society for half a year at half the price*
6 months $19.50 ($9.75 for students) Right now, qualified chemists and chemical engineers can enjoy the full benefits of membership in the American Chemical Society for six months for just $19.50! ($9.75 for students). The member-only savings on periodicals, journals, continuing education courses can amount to many times the dues! And membership also includes weekly issues of Chemical and Engineering News, one of the nation's most prestigious, newsworthy publications in the field. For members who are seeking new (or better) jobs... the ACS Employment Aids Office services are available at no charge! Not only that! National, regional and local section meetings offer the opportunity to get together with colleagues, top-flight scientists, potential employers or employees. It's easy for you... or a friend... to join ACS at these special half-year, half-price rates! Just tear out, fill in, and mail the application facing this page. Office of Member Services American Chemical Society 1155 Sixteenth Street, N-WWashington, D*C 20036
Professionals in Chemistry . . . the third report of the series on the people who make up the chemical profession.
Professionals in Chemistry 1976 contains a wealth of employment and educational data of particular interest to academic administrators, faculty members, industrial managers, personnel specialists, individual chemists and chemical engineers, career counselors, and the young men and women contemplating — or preparing for — careers in chemistry.
A Comprehensive Report on: Characteristics Remuneration Employment Projections Employers Minority Chemists Postdoctoral Fellows Supply
American Chemical Society Special Issue Sales 1155 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
Please send me copies of Professionals in Chemistry 1976. Price: $15.00 Member Price: $7.00 Please send me complete sets of Professionals in Chemistry. Price: $25.00 Member Price: $10.00 Payment of $
is enclosed.
Nar^e Address
I
1
proposals, with the type of review used, whether mail or panel or just by NSF staff, depending on the specific proposal. A substantial minority—32% of the reviewers and 26% of the applicants—favors requiring the use of both ad hoc and panel review for all proposals. About a third of each group favors introducing some degree of randomization into the selection of ad hoc reviewers, preferring a procedure that would combine NSF staff selection with a random sampling technique utilizing a pool of reviewers. Such a pool could be selected by consulting citation indexes, or from nomination by NSF staff and/or professional societies. About two thirds of the respondents approve of NSF's policy of providing applicants with verbatim copies of reviews, with 36% of the applicants indicating that knowing who the reviewers were would be useful. But almost half indicated that knowing reviewers' names wouldn't make much difference. Making the name of the reviewer known was not popular among reviewers themselves, with 78% saying that they disapproved. In addition, 35% indicated that they would refuse to serve as reviewers if a policy of identifying reviewers by name was adopted, 27% said they would continue but on a more limited basis. And more than 50% said they would stop doing reviews if NSF adopted a policy of treating all reviews as public information. Modification of the reviewers' selection process topped the list of suggested improvements offered by reviewers. But no one agreed on how to do it. Some suggestions offered included increasing the turnover of reviewers, increasing the number of reviewers, and randomly matching reviewers to proposals. Others were for building more feedback, both to reviewers and applicants, into the system and permitting rebuttal by applicants. A small number of reviewers thought they ought to get paid for their time. The survey also asked reviewers about what they did and how they were selected. Mail reviewers said they had completed a median of 3.3 reviews during the past two years and had spent about three hours on each proposal. Panel reviewers completed a median number of 249 reviews, spending about an hour reviewing each proposal before the panel convened and about a half hour on each proposal during the panel session. More than 75% of the mail reviewers and 60% of the panel reviewers reported that they were personally acquainted with some of the individuals whose proposals they reviewed. About two thirds of all reviewers indicated that they think one reason for their selections was that their own professional work was known to NSF staff. About half of the ad hoc reviewers think that their own previous applications for NSF funds had acquainted NSF staff members with their work. About one fifth indicated that personal acquaintance with NSF staff may have been a reason for their selection. More than 90% of the reviewers reported they were provided with enough information to conduct an adequate review. •
Synthetic Methods for Carbohydrates ACS Symposium Series No. 39 Hassan S. El Khadem, Editor Michigan Technological University A symposium sponsored by the Division of Carbohydrate Chemistry of the American Chemical Society. Carbohydrate, medicinai, and natural-product chemists will value this indispensable new collection for its complete, up-to-date coverage of: Applications of Ethylboron Compounds in Carbohydrate Chemistry • New Aspects of Synthesis with Benzylidene Acetals • Practical and Conceptual Approaches to Glycoside Synthesis • Some Aspects of Organic Synthesis on Modified C-Nucleosides, Oxaprostaglandines, and Aminoglycoside Antibiotics • The Stereochemistry of Nitrogen Heterocycles Containing Sugars • Synthesis of 2-Amino-2-deoxy- /rt-D-glucopyranosides • Some Aspects of the Chemistry of D-Glucal • Methods for Introducing Atoms Other than Oxygen into Sugar Rings • Stereoselective Syntheses and Properties of 1 • O • Acyl-D-Glycopyranoses • Preparation and Characterization of 1,6-Anhydro-3,4-dideoxy0 -D-glycero-hex-3-enopyranos-2-ulose • Formation and Conversion of Phenylhydrazones and Osazones of Carbohydrates • Synthesis of Polyhydroxyalkyl Heterocycles • Synthesis of Chiral Hydrocarbons from Carbohydrates • Synthesis of New Sugar Derivatives of Biogenic Amines • Studies on the Synthesis of Serologically Active Glycolipids 285 pages (1977) clothbound $19.50 LC 76-58888 ISBN 0-8412-0365-2
SIS/American Chemical Society 1155 16th St., N.W./Wash., D.C. 20036 Please send copies of SS 39 Synthetic Methods for Carbohydrates at $19.50 per copy. D Check enclosed for $ • Bill me. Postpaid in U.S. and Canada, plus 40 cents elsewhere. Name Address City
State
Zip
May 30, 1977 C&EN
21
