Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly
- 392 Downloads
The aim of peer review is to separate the wheat from the chaff for publication and research funding. In the excessive competition, this mechanism would only select the wheat of mainstream. Up to now, almost all discussions on the consequence of the short-comings of peer review are limited to qualitatively description. I propose a model of “peer-group-assessed-grant-based-funding-system” combined with tenure system and over-competitive research funding review process. It is the first on the quantitatively investigation which dramatizes the current short-comings of the process. My simulation shows that it takes about two or three generations of researchers for the mainstream of a complicated research topic obtaining monopoly supremacy, with only the aid of the mechanism the model described. Based on the computation results, suggestions are proposed to avoid loss of self-correction capability on popularity determined single research direction which could be wrong on very complicated research topics.
KeywordsPeer review Research funding Excessive competition Mainstream Mathematical model Simulation
Mathematics Subject Classification60H99
JEL ClassificationC15 C32
I am grateful to Dr. W. Z. Wang (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA) for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the National Basic Research Program of China under Grant 2011CBA00107.
- Berezin, A. A. (2001). Discouragement of innovation by overcompetitive research funding. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 26, 97–102.Google Scholar
- Lerner, E. (2004). Bucking the big bang. New Scientist, 2448, 20.Google Scholar
- Smith, R. (1997). Peer review: Reform or revolution? British Medical Journal, 315, 759–760.Google Scholar