Editors' Column NSF Peer Review A survey of grant applicants and grant reviewers shows t h a t the peer review system of the National Science Foundation (NSF) is judged to be quite adequate. Of the scientists who submitted research proposals to N S F during fiscal year 1975, 77% believe t h a t the review procedures are appropriate. Somewhat predictably, nearly all applicants whose most recent proposal was funded believe t h a t the review procedures are appropriate, whereas 50% of those whose most recent proposal was declined believe the procedures to be inappropriate. Among the scientists who participated in the review of research proposals by mail, 46% feel t h a t the mail review process is sound, 50% believe t h a t the process is acceptable, and only 4% feel t h a t the process is questionable and includes many weaknesses. T h e survey was initiated because of considerable discussion in the scientific community and in Congress of the peer review process. During the spring and summer of 1975, a series of Congressional oversight hearings on peer review was held by the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology's .subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology. Also, the National Science Board (NSB), which is the policy-making body of N S F , established a special task committee to study the process. In late 1975, N S B and the House subcommittee jointly commissioned a study to gather objective information about the scientific community's views on the peer review process. Originally, information was to be solicited from three groups: N S F reviewers, recent applicants for N S F funds, and scientific researchers who were neither reviewers nor recent applicants. Surveying the latter group was deemed not to be feasible, but from N S F files of reviews and proposal actions, it was possible to select independent samples of recent reviewers and applicants. According to Deborah R. Hensler, consultant to N S B and author of a report presenting a detailed analysis of the survey data, the most serious criticism of the N S F peer review process is t h a t it is biased against proposals from less prestigious institutions, proposals by younger researchers, and proposals t h a t are innovative in character. Data from the surveys cannot be used to confirm or refute the charge of bias since no substantive or qualitative information about proposals was collected. However, both re-
viewer and applicant questionnaires included three questions to measure general perceptions of bias in the system. T h e questions were generally of the type: If two equally good proposals are submitted to N S F , one from A and one from B, do you think t h a t each has an equal chance of being recommended for funding by the peer reviewers, or does one have a better chance than the other? A majority of reviewers and applicants believe t h a t the N S F peer review process favors proposals from well-known institutions, proposals by older, well-established principal investigators, and proposals t h a t are in the mainstream of thought rather than those which challenge current thinking. D a t a from the survey also show that: • Reviewers believe t h a t strengths of the peer review system are the wellmatched reviewers and proposals and the broad range of expert recommendations solicited. • Reviewers feel t h a t weaknesses
of the system include lack of feedback and the opportunity for favoritism. • A majority of both applicants and reviewers thought t h a t N S F should require some type of peer review for all proposals. In selecting reviewers the majority favored continuance of a role for t h e N S F staff in reviewer selection; however, a significant minority favored random sampling techniques. • Applicants and reviewers approve of the recent N S B policy of furnishing verbatim anonymous copies of reviews to grant applicants. They disapprove of providing the names of reviewers with their reviews. Dr. Hensler's report, "Perceptions of the National Science Foundation Peer Review Process: A Report on a Survey of N S F Reviewers and Applicants", No. N S F 77-33, may be obtained from the Mail, Security, and Records Section, 1800 G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20550. A. A.
Husovsky
Reliable. Fast and Easy. MCI automatic analyzer. m e t h o d to s i m u l t a n e o u s l y m e a s u r e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of 5 different trace h e a v y m e t a l s . Ultra-high sensitivity a n d a u t o m a t i c s a m p l e feed/discharge m e a s u r i n g cell a s s u r e s fast, precise results. Reproducibility is 3-to-20%. Range: 0.1 PPB—10 PPM.
AS-01 Trace Metal Analyzer
MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED Instruments Dept., Mitsubishi Bldg., 5-2. Marunouchi 2-chome, Chiyoda-ku. yo. 100 Japan Telex: J 2 4 9 0 Cable Address: KASEICO TOKYO CIRCLE 139 ON READER SERVICE CARD ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 49, NO. 1 1 , SEPTEMBER
1977 · 945 A
