Abstract
The National Science Foundation is part-some would say the centerpiece-of America's vastly successful research system. Hailed as the source of financial support for mostly basic, mostly academic, research creativity, NSF is a symbol of the U.S. federal investment in science. The symbolism counts. For part of NSF's mystique, and the source of much of its moral power, is the system by which it allocates scarce resources to good ideas-peer review. NSF's success in supporting science, however, has attracted so many participants that it has lost efficiency, then clarity, and perhaps, according to some, its mission. Peer review has been the lightning rod for criticisms of a beleaguered funding system. It is burdened with too much responsibility and too few resources to satisfy the formidable demands of our research work force. The system is being overwhelmed by its participants. McCullough (this issue) says it well:
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
