I note that battle lines are being drawn in the US between the parties concerning peer review and the NSF. The Republicans are questioning a number of NSF grants and demanding some justification of the review process for funding awards. The Democrats are taking this as an heretical attack on SCIENCE. But I also note that one important distinction is not being drawn.
Choosing projects for funding from the public purse is fundamentally a political process and requires justification in simple terms to the providers of that funding (the taxpayer). While peer review – for all its faults – may be used to select projects the reviewers cannot escape the responsibility to justify their selections to the funders (and not just to the funding organisation – NSF – set up to channel the funds). Of course the NSF would prefer that they have complete freedom in disbursing the funds allocated to them in any way they please – but that won’t wash. The acceptance of public funds demands public accountability.
Peer review for publication is a very different thing. This should be in – engineering terms – a “Quality gate”. It should be a check of the quality of the work done and its independence. But here reviewers also carry a “fiduciary” responsibility which is not always met. The reviewers carry an obligation of trust and ethical propriety not only to the journals they serve but also to the readers and subscribers of that journal. Where funding is involved this “fiduciary” responsibility extends to the providers of the funds. Unlike reviewers for funding selection who – I think – must be able to justify their choices to a wider audience than the “in-crowd”, the publication reviewer does not need to provide explanations for his opinions. But his opinions cannot be secret opinions – and that requires that such reviewers not be anonymous and that their opinions be available. Journal editors have the final responsibility for what is published or not. But reviewers should not escape being held responsible and accountable for their share of such decisions. They cannot escape from ownership and consequences of their own opinions and judgements on which decisions to publish or reject may be based.
Financial auditors cannot escape their fiduciary responsibilities (though they often escape accountability). Can the scientific community continue to take – or appear to take – less responsibility than the financial community? Accountability is quite another matter.
The new chair of the House of Representatives science committee has drafted a bill that, in effect, would replace peer review at the National Science Foundation (NSF) with a set of funding criteria chosen by Congress. For good measure, it would also set in motion a process to determine whether the same criteria should be adopted by every other federal science agency.
The legislation, being worked up by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), represents the latest—and bluntest—attack on NSF by congressional Republicans seeking to halt what they believe is frivolous and wasteful research being funded in the social sciences. Last month, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) successfully attached language to a 2013 spending bill that prohibits NSF from funding any political science research for the rest of the fiscal year unless its director certifies that it pertains to economic development or national security. Smith’s draft bill, called the “High Quality Research Act,” would apply similar language to NSF’s entire research portfolio across all the disciplines that it supports.
In a brief 15-minute speech today, US President Barack Obama championed independence for the peer-review process, in front of an audience of elite researchers at the 150th annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences in Washington DC.
“In order for us to maintain our edge, we’ve got to protect our rigorous peer review system,” Obama said. His support comes on the heels of draft legislation, dated 18 April, that ScienceInsider reports is being discussed by the chairman of the US House of Representatives Science Committee, Lamar Smith (Republican, Texas). That legislation would overhaul peer review of grants submitted to the National Science Foundation (NSF) and require the NSF director to certify each funded project as benefitting the economic or public health of the United States.
The k2p blog 