Peer review and innovation

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.

What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? An updated review of the literature and six case studies

“…Therefore, researchers working on innovative research that does not have a direct, or initially obvious, application may struggle to make a case for the worthiness of their work. As a result, critics claim, such research is less likely to be funded through conventional peer review systems (RIN 2010;Spier 2002). This complaint, however, reflects a concern with utilitarian, outcome-based approaches to evaluation, rather than an inherent flaw with peer review itself.…”

“…Because proposals for innovative research may appear less robustly supported than those for more conventional research with a large body of preceding work, they are less likely to be recommended for funding by reviewers (RIN 2010;Spier 2002). Innovative proposals, it is argued, require a less risk-averse mind-set from the reviewer, as new ideas are more likely to be seen as unsubstantiated (Spier 2002).…”

Shifting Power Relations and the Ethics of Journal Peer Review

“…authors') expense (Atkinson 1994;Judson 1994;Godlee 2000;Atkinson 2001;Wager and Herxheimer 2003). In explaining the cause of excessive conservatism, for example, some emphasise that those with power have a vested interest in preserving the scientific status quo and that those with unconventional ideas face such hostility that they are likely to conceal these ideas in both their research and their writing in order to be able to compete for resources (Atkinson 2001;Spier 2002;Hojat, Gonnella and Caelleigh 2003;.…”

Editorial

“…Um dos aspectos fundamentais para publicação científica envolve a avaliação por pares (Campbell, 2006). Apesar de críticas que podem ser levantadas em relação ao processo (Horrobin, 2001;Shatz, 2004;Spier, 2002), estudos como o de Mulligan, Hall e Raphael (2013) indicam que a avaliação por pares auxilia na melhoria de artigos. Diversos apontamentos sobre desafios encontrados com relação à avaliação por pares foram apresentados no editorial anterior.…”