Spier Raymond E
School of Biomedical and Life Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, United Kingdom.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2002 Jan;8(1):99-108; discussion 109-12. doi: 10.1007/s11948-002-0035-0.
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.
同行评审与创新之间关系的两个重要方面包括期刊对文章发表的接受以及对研究工作资金资助申请的评估。虽然有一些广为人知的例子,即许多从根本上改变了我们对自身之外世界看法的首选论文被期刊拒稿,但这些论文最终还是会发表,无论过程多么曲折。对于资助申请,情况有所不同,因为资助申请被拒必然会限制可能尝试的研究。在基于同行评审的资助分配过程能否开展真正具有创新性的研究方面,存在许多保守和保留的理由。需要其他方法;尽管这些方法不必全面应用,但它们应构成分配约10% - 20%资助资金的方法。为特定成就设立奖项是实现创新的一种方式,不过这假定研究人员或机构已经有实施创新所需的资金;否则就是关于挑选特定个人或机构并为其提供资金,要求他们解决以最宽泛术语设定的特定问题。