Abstract
Two important aspects of the relationship between peer review and innovation includes the acceptance of articles for publication in journals and the assessment of applications for grants for the funding of research work. While there are well-known examples of the rejection by journals of first choice of many papers that have radically changed the way we think about the world outside ourselves, such papers do get published eventually, however tortuous the process required. With grant applications the situation differs in that the refusal of a grant necessarily curtails the possible research that may be attempted. Here there are many reasons for conservatism and reservation as to the ability of a grant allocation process based on peer review to deliver truly innovative investigations. Other methods are needed; although such methods need not be applied across the board, they should constitute the methods whereby some 10–20% of the grant monies are assigned. The nomination of prizes for specific accomplishments is one way of achieving innovation although this presumes that investigators or institution already have available the money necessary to effect the innovations; otherwise it is a question of the selection and funding of particular individuals or institutions and requiring them to solve particular problems that are set in the broadest of terms.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Armstrong, J.Scott (1997) Peer Review for Journals: Evidence of Quality Control, Fairness and Innovation, Science and Engineering Ethics 3(1): 63–84.
Roy, R. and Ashburn, J.R. (2001) The Perils of Peer Review, Nature 414: 393–394
Fletcher, R.H. and Fletcher, S.W. (1997) Evidence for the Effectiveness of Peer Review, Science and Engineering Ethics 3(1): 35–50.
Stamps III, A.E. (1997) Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction Science and Engineering Ethics 3(1): 3–10.
Marshall, E. (1997) NIH plans peer-review overhaul, Science 276: 888–889.
McCullough, J. (1993) in: Eds Wood, F.Q. and V.L. Meek, Research grants management and funding,. Pub. Bibliotech, ANUTECH Pty Ltd, Canberra, Australia, p. 212.
Kostoff, R.N. (1997) The Principles and Practice of Peer Review; Science and Engineering Ethics 3(1): 19–34.
May, R. (1998) Making room for innovative flair. ESPRC Newsline Special Issue July 1998, published by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Swindon UK, pp. 10–11; (http://www.esprc.ac.uk).
Cole, S., Cole, J.R. & Simon, G.A. (1981) Chance and consensus in peer review; Science 214: 881–886.
Baldwin, W. and Seto, B. (1997) Peer Review: Selecting the Best Science, Science and Engineering Ethics 3(1): 11–18.
Spier, R.E. (1998) Ethics and the Funding of Research and Development at Universities, Science and Engineering Ethics 4(3): 375–384.
Horrobin, D. (1996) Peer review of grant applications: a harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research? Lancet 348: 1293–1295.
Horrabin, D. (1990) The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. The Journal of the American Medical Association 263: 1438–1441.
Horrobin, D. (1986) Glittering prizes for research support, Nature 32: 221.
Glass, B. (1966) Science and Ethical Values, Oxford University Press, London, p. 89.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Spier, R. Peer review and innovation. SCI ENG ETHICS 8, 99–108 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0035-0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0035-0