[9689] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Some Thoughts on The National Science Board
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean McLinden)
Sun Jan 16 18:05:54 1994
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 1994 17:47:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Sean McLinden <sean@dsl.pitt.edu>
To: Stan Barber <sob@tmc.edu>
Cc: Hans-Werner Braun <hwb@upeksa.sdsc.edu>, Gordon Cook <cook@path.net>,
In-Reply-To: <199401162223.QAA22786@tmc.edu>
On Sun, 16 Jan 1994, Stan Barber wrote:
> I think one of the reasons that "peer review" is continued to be the way
> such things are done is because noone has proposed something so much better
> that those that care have been willing to endorse it.
Well, we are getting off the subject a bit but here I must disagree. Peer
review persists because it institutionalizes resistance to change and
preserves the hold that the "haves" have over the allocation of
resources while maintaining the illusion of a process which is resistant
to bias. There have been many proposals to modify the peer review
process including staging the evaluation of the proposal in such a way
that it becomes possible to blind the reviewers to the authors, elected
rather than appointed representation to the various review and advisory
committees, and cross-review of proposals by other organizations, to name
a few (and there are many). They are unlikely to be accepted because they
would force those who currently have a hold on the system to relinquish
it. This is not suprising as it is hard to imagine the product of
any political system being above politics.
> If Gordon feels he has such a proposal, he should air it.
To be fair, it was I who raised the point about peer review in response
to Hans' response to Gordon.
Sean
