[9686] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Some Thoughts on The National Science Board
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean McLinden)
Sun Jan 16 16:18:58 1994
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 1994 16:00:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Sean McLinden <sean@dsl.pitt.edu>
To: Hans-Werner Braun <hwb@upeksa.sdsc.edu>
Cc: Gordon Cook <cook@path.net>, com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9401161932.AA18147@upeksa.sdsc.edu>
On Sun, 16 Jan 1994, Hans-Werner Braun wrote:
> That is an interesting summary. There is also peer review before it
> gets to the management chain to decide, including as NSF (to my
> knowledge) does not "procure." Guess everyone does as best they can,
> given the means and processes that are in place.
Although I agree that we are doing the best that we can in light of the
system that we have, I guess it is the system that we have with which I
find fault. The system of "peer review" is not without considerable
problems and is probably worthy of some serious revision. In the first
place, the "peers" are often drawn from the list of previously successful
researchers so that there is a decided tendency to endorse the status
quo. In the second, peer reviewed research, just like peer reviewed
literature, is not blinded (it would be difficult, but not impossible to
do this), therefore, personalities may be involved which have little or
nothing to do with the merit of the work and everything to do with
feelings toward the author or researcher. Finally, the "peer review"
process only occurs after the program priorities and objectives have been
defined and this process may, itself, prejudice the direction of the
program toward the interests of a particular group or researcher and
leave the reviewers with very little discretion.
Note that this is not meant as a condemnation of the entire scientific
review process, but "peer review" is far from being the objective lens
that it is frequently held up to be. Which is, perhaps, why some people
are concerned about the processes which occur before and after.
Sean
