Related Experiment Videos
Peer review and innovation.
1School of Biomedical and Life Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, United Kingdom. r.spier@surrey.ac.uk
Science and Engineering Ethics
|February 14, 2002
Summary
Peer review in scientific publishing and grant funding can hinder radical innovation. Alternative methods, like prize nominations, are needed to fund groundbreaking research and foster scientific advancement.
Area of Science:
- Scientific communication
- Research funding
- Innovation management
Background:
- Peer review is crucial for journal publication and grant allocation.
- The current peer review system may exhibit conservatism, potentially stifling groundbreaking research.
- Rejection of research papers by journals can delay, but not necessarily prevent, their eventual publication.
Purpose of the Study:
- To analyze the impact of peer review on scientific innovation.
- To identify limitations of peer review in funding novel research.
- To propose alternative mechanisms for fostering research innovation.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of the peer review process in journal publication.
- Examination of grant application assessment procedures.
- Discussion of alternative funding models for innovative research.
Main Results:
- Peer review can be a barrier to the acceptance of highly innovative research papers.
- Grant allocation via peer review may favor conservative research proposals.
- Alternative methods are suggested for allocating a portion of research funds to promote innovation.
Conclusions:
- The traditional peer review system may not be optimal for identifying and funding truly innovative research.
- A portion of research funding (10-20%) should be allocated through alternative mechanisms.
- Prize nominations and targeted funding are potential strategies to encourage scientific breakthroughs.