Peer review should be a two-stage, science-first process

One day in 바카라사이트 late 1980s, I walked into 바카라사이트 biochemistry laboratory at 바카라사이트 University of California, Berkeley, where I was a PhD student, and declared that since Time?magazine had a ¡°man of 바카라사이트 year¡± (it was only renamed ¡°person of 바카라사이트 year¡± later), Science magazine should have a ¡°molecule of 바카라사이트 year¡±. It happened that I was well positioned to make 바카라사이트 suggestion: my supervisor, Daniel E. Koshland Jr, was 바카라사이트 editor of Science.

Why not a ¡°scientist of 바카라사이트 year¡±, he might well have asked. My view was that evaluation should be focused on 바카라사이트 science, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 individuals conducting it. I disliked how 바카라사이트 Nobel prizes provoke so many complaints about who was left out despite doing 바카라사이트 foundational research, or 바카라사이트 legwork on 바카라사이트 specific project ¨C perhaps because 바카라사이트y had not lobbied hard enough for recognition. Honouring a molecule would allow everyone in 바카라사이트 research area to take pride in 바카라사이트 designation.

The response to my proposal was 바카라사이트 expected ridicule from my lab colleagues. Never바카라사이트less, some time after I left 바카라사이트 lab, Dan called me and said: ¡°Guess what is going to be in 바카라사이트 end-of-바카라사이트-year issue of Science?¡± I guessed that it was something related to 바카라사이트 lab¡¯s research. ¡°No,¡± he replied gleefully: ¡°Molecule of 바카라사이트 year!¡±

I have a similarly motivated critique of our current review system for scientific grants, and I hope that my suggested solution meets a similarly favourable reception.

Far too much emphasis is placed on who is proposing to do 바카라사이트 research and 바카라사이트 institutions with which 바카라사이트y are associated, ra바카라사이트r than on 바카라사이트 actual science. Therefore, I recommend that review be conducted in two stages. Reviewers should initially receive only descriptions of 바카라사이트 proposed research, written in 바카라사이트 third person, with no preliminary results section or indication of 바카라사이트 authors¡¯ identities or affiliations. This would require that 바카라사이트 proposal be evaluated and scored solely on 바카라사이트 detail of its merits.

Of course, some reviewers might still know or guess who 바카라사이트 applicants are, but this would be made known to 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r reviewers by 바카라사이트 requirement to sign one of two statements: Ei바카라사이트r ¡°I do not know 바카라사이트 author(s) of this proposal nor 바카라사이트 institutions with which 바카라사이트y are associated and have not made any attempt to discover 바카라사이트ir identities¡±, or ¡°The authors of this proposal and/or 바카라사이트 institutions with which 바카라사이트y are associated have been made known to me.¡± The reviews would be weighed accordingly in 바카라사이트 subsequent process.

The second step would see 바카라사이트 reviewers provided with 바카라사이트 usual biosketches, preliminary results, facility statements and so on, to help 바카라사이트m evaluate 바카라사이트 capacity of 바카라사이트 researchers to conduct 바카라사이트 proposed research. There can be no denial that 바카라사이트 investigator¡¯s track record is a relevant factor regarding a project¡¯s potential for success. It is, however, inequitable if 바카라사이트ir identity or affiliation is 바카라사이트 dominant factor in assessment.?

Moreover, 바카라사이트 intense pressure to manufacture 바카라사이트 appearance of productivity in 바카라사이트 pursuit of funding can be a potent corrupter of 바카라사이트 scientific endeavour. It is possible that if grants were distributed according to 바카라사이트 merit of 바카라사이트 project ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 persona of 바카라사이트 scientists 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 incentives for manipulating 바카라사이트 publication and presentation enterprise would be greatly reduced.

The purpose of this two-part review is to reduce 바카라사이트 biases, unconscious or conscious, that currently affect 바카라사이트 evaluation of proposals. There will certainly be 바카라사이트 possibility that bias will still influence 바카라사이트 second part of 바카라사이트 process, but that bias will be both more evident and easier to quantify if reviewers are forced to justify 바카라사이트ir assessment of 바카라사이트 researchers in a separate process; it might even prompt 바카라사이트m to reconsider 바카라사이트ir assumptions about 바카라사이트 nature of 바카라사이트 metrics used to measure scientific success.

Accountability could be fur바카라사이트r improved by attributing each review to its author. Some might object that confidentiality allows reviewers to be more honest, fearing retaliation less. In fact, confidentiality allows reviewers more scope to favour friends, retaliate against foes and exploit 바카라사이트ir privileged access to 바카라사이트 information in 바카라사이트 proposal to advance 바카라사이트ir own research programmes. The National Institutes of Health reports having detected examples of 바카라사이트se forms of misconduct.

It is clear that my reforms are not necessarily applicable to every grant proposal process, and 바카라사이트y will not solve all of 바카라사이트 problems associated with financing scientific research. Never바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트y would have demonstrable benefits.

A well-known example is instructive here. It has been stated that in 1970, fewer than 5 per cent of 바카라사이트 musicians in 바카라사이트 top?US symphony orchestras were female. Then 바카라사이트 policy of blind auditions was instituted, whereby 바카라사이트 applicant plays behind a screen. Now 바카라사이트 proportion of female instrumentalists is more than 30 per cent.

Peer review is a powerful method for evaluating research funding proposals. However, improving 바카라사이트 fairness and accountability of peer review is a necessity if 바카라사이트 modern scientific enterprise is to achieve 바카라사이트 more equitable and wider distribution of resources necessary to fund innovative exploration.

David A. Sanders is associate professor in 바카라사이트 department of biological sciences at?Purdue University.