Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Evaluating R&D Impacts: Methods and Practice pp 79–98Cite as

Peer Review and Evaluation of R&D Impacts

  • Chapter

Abstract

Peer review is, arguably, the most important evaluation technique used in the sciences. The vast majority of public domain scientific papers are evaluated by peer review. Many government science and technology funding agencies use peer review as a primary means of selecting projects for funding. Peer review is also employed for the evaluation of R&D impacts, though this is a much less common application.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Atkinson, R. and W. Blanpied. 1985. “Peer Review and the Public Interest.” Issues in Science and Technology, 2: 101–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, Adam. 1990. “Peer Review and Support for Innovative Research.” Unpublished paper. Syracuse, N.Y.: Technology and Information Policy Program, Syracuse University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boden, T. 1981. “Evaluation of Peer Review Draws Mixed Reactions.” Bioscience, 32, 1: 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. and M. Crow, U.S. R and D Laboratories and their Environments, Washington, DC: Report to the National Science Foundation, Science Resources Section, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. and M. Crow. In press. “Pork Barrel, Peer Review, and Congressional Science Policy.” Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. 1979. “Straight Arrow Science and its Dangers.” Public Administration Review, 34: 116–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. and S. Bretschneider. 1990. Assessing Electronic Merit Review at the National Science Foundation. Monograph prepared under contract to the Evaluation Office, National Science Foundation. Syracuse, N.Y.: Technology and Information Policy Program, Syracuse University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceci, S.J. and D. Peters. 1984. “How Blind is Blind Review.” American Psychologist, 39, 1491–1494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chubin, D. 1985. “Much Ado About Peer Review.” Bioscience, 36, 1: 18–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chubin, D. and E.J. Hackett. 1990. Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee of Federal Laboratories Task Force on Performance Measures for R and D. 1975. “Performance Measures for Research and Development.” Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Standards.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J. and S. Cole. 1981. Peer Review in the National Science Foundation. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, S., Rubin, L., and Cole, J.R., “Peer Review and the Support of Science,” Science, 237 (1977): 34–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, Stephen, Jonathan R. Cole, and Gary A. Simon. 1981. “Chance and Consensus in Peer Review.” Science, 214, 881–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commins, W.D. Reviewer and Proposer Similarity and its Effect on Award Decision. Evaluation Staff Studies 76–1. ( Washington: National Science Foundation, 1976 ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Comptroller General of Canada. 1986. Evaluation of Research and Development Programs. Program Evaluation Branch, Office of the Comptroller General, Ottawa, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, D. 1972. Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, Gilbert W. Jr., Daryl E. Chubin, and George M. Kurzon. 1985. “Experience with NIH Peer Review: Researchers’ Cynicism and Desire for Change,” Science, Technology and Human Values, 10, 3, 44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargens, Lowell. 1988. “Scholarly Consensus and Journal Rejection Rates.” American Sociological Review, 53, 139–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensler, D. Perceptions of the National Science Foundation Peer Review Process: A Report on a Survey of NSF Reviewers and Applicants. (Washington: National Science Foundation 77–33, December, 1976 ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. 1985. “Peer Review in the Regulatory Process.” Science Technology and Human Values, 10, 3: 20–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, David. 1985. “Insiders, Outsiders, and Efficiency in a National Science Foundation Panel.” American Psychologist, 40, 2, 148–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koshland, D.E. 1985. “Peer Review of Peer Review.” Science, 228: 1387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruytbosch, Carlos. 1989. “The Role and Effectiveness of Peer Review.” Paper presented at the Ciba Foundation Conference on Research Evaluation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, A. Carl. 1988. “The Peer-Review System:Pique and Critique.” The Scientist, 11–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey, Duncan. 1978. The Scientific Publication System in Social Science. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey, Duncan. 1988. “Assessing Precision in the Manuscript Review Process: A Little Better than a Dice Roll.” Scientometrics, 14, 1,2, 75–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddox, John. 1984. “Privacy and the Peer-Review System.” Nature 312, 497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, Michael. 1977. “Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System.” Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1,2, 161–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCullough, Jim. 1989. “First Comprehensive Survey of NSF Applicants Focuses on their Concerns about Proposal Review.” Science, Technology, and Human Values, 14 (1), 78–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, A.J. 1974. Communication in Science. London: Butterworth Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff, Ian I. and Daryl Chubin. 1979. “Peer Review at NSF: A Dialectical Policy Analysis.” Social Studies of Science, 9, 199–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moment, Gardener. 1986. “Risk Money for Research and the Peer Review System.” Bioscience, 31, 6: 421.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation, Evaluation Staff. Fairness of the NSF Award Decision Process: Fiscal Year 1982. ( Washington: National Science Foundation, 1984 ).

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. Proposal Review at NSF: Perceptions of Principal Investigators. NSF Report 88–4. ( Washington: National Science Foundation, 1988 ).

    Google Scholar 

  • NIH Grants Peer Review Study Team. 1976. Grants Peer Review: Report to the Director, NIH Phase I. Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, John H. 1974. “Peer Review: Quality Control of Applied Social Research.” Science, 185, 916–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1986. Evaluation of Research: A Selection of Current Practices. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. 1962. “The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory.” Minerva, 1: 54–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. and F. Rossini. 1985. “Peer Review of Interdisciplinary Proposals.” Science, Technology and Human Values, 10, 3, 34–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proceedings of the 1989 Meeting of the Chairpersons of DRG Initial Review Groups.“ 1989. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, Rustom. 1985. “Funding Science: The Real Defects of Peer Review and an Alternative to It.” Science, Technology and Human Values, 10, 3, 47–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, Rustom. 1982. “Peer Review of Proposals-Rationale, Practice, and Performance.” Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 2, 402–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, Rustom. 1984. “Alternatives to Review by Peers: A Contribution to the Theory of Scientific Choice.” Minerva, 22 (3,4) 316–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salasin, J., L. Hattery, and T. Ramsay. 1980. The Evaluation of Federal Research Programs. McClean, Va.: The MITRE Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silber, John. 1985. Testimony before the Congressional Science Policy Task Force, Washington, D.C., June 26, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southgate, M.T. 1982. “Conflict of Interest and the Peer Review Process.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 258: 1375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, M.J. and J.A. Steger. 1977. “Measuring Innovation and Productivity: A Peer Rating Approach.” Research Management, 20, 1: 35–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Energy. 1990. Procedures for Peer Review Assessments. Washington, D.C.: Office of Energy Research, Office of Program Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy.

    Google Scholar 

  • U. S. General Accounting Office. 1987. University Funding: Information on the Role of Peer Review at NIH and NSF. Washington, D.C.: USGAO, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, Alvin. 1966. Reflections on Big Science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H. and R. Merton. 1973. “Institutionalized Patterns of Evaluation in Science,” in R. Merton (ed.) The Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Technology and Information Policy The Maxwell School of Citizenship Public Affairs and The L.C. Smith College of Engineering, Syracuse University, USA

    Barry Bozeman

Authors
  1. Barry Bozeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA

    Barry Bozeman

  2. University of Alaska Southeast, Syracuse, New York, USA

    Julia Melkers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1993 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bozeman, B. (1993). Peer Review and Evaluation of R&D Impacts. In: Bozeman, B., Melkers, J. (eds) Evaluating R&D Impacts: Methods and Practice. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5182-6_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5182-6_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-5135-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-5182-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation