| Автор | Forsdyke, D. R. |
| Дата выпуска | 1993 |
| dc.description | A systems analyst (SA) with AIDS has applied his professional skills to determine whether available research funds are being spent optimally. After an initial briefing by the director (D) of a major funding organization and visits to various research laboratories, he now returns to suggest to the director a novel “bicameral”; method of reviewing research proposals. The “retrospective”; and “prospective”; parts of research proposals should be separated and independently routed. Peer‐review should be entirely retrospective and concerned with past performance relative to funds received. Prospective review, concerned solely with budget, should be performed in house by the funding bodies. The director is not entirely in agreement. |
| Формат | application.pdf |
| Издатель | Taylor & Francis Group |
| Копирайт | Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC |
| Тема | peer review |
| Тема | bicameral review |
| Тема | performance/$ |
| Тема | sliding scale |
| Тема | research on researc |
| Название | Bicameral grant review: How a systems analyst with aids would reform research funding |
| Тип | review-article |
| DOI | 10.1080/08989629308573820 |
| Electronic ISSN | 1545-5815 |
| Print ISSN | 0898-9621 |
| Журнал | Accountability in Research |
| Том | 2 |
| Первая страница | 237 |
| Последняя страница | 241 |
| Аффилиация | Forsdyke, D. R.; Department of Biochemistry, Queen's University |
| Выпуск | 4 |
| Библиографическая ссылка | Angier, N. 1988. Natural Obsessions: The Search for the Oncogene, 1–4. Boston: Houghton‐Mifflin. |
| Библиографическая ссылка | Apirion, D. 1979. Research funding and the peer review system. Fed. Proc., 38: 2649–50. |
| Библиографическая ссылка | Forsdyke, D. R. 1983a. Canadian medical research strategy for the eighties. I. Damage‐limitation or super‐elitism as the basis for the distribution of research funds. Medical Hypothesis, 11: 141–145. |
| Библиографическая ссылка | Forsdyke, D. R. 1983b. Canadian medical research strategy for the eighties. II. Promise or performance as the basis for the distribution of research funds. Medical Hypothesis, 11: 147–156. |
| Библиографическая ссылка | Forsdyke, D. R. 1989a. A systems analyst asks about AIDS research funding. Lancet, 1: 1382–84. |
| Библиографическая ссылка | Forsdyke, D. R. 1989b. Peer review policy. The Scientist, 3(16): 13 |
| Библиографическая ссылка | Forsdyke, D. R. 1989c. Sudden‐death funding system. FASEB J., 3: 2221 |
| Библиографическая ссылка | Forsdyke, D R. 1991. Bicameral grant review: an alternative to conventional peer review. FASEBJ., 5: 2312–2314. |
| Библиографическая ссылка | Koshland, D. E. 1989. The cystic fibrosis gene story. Science, 245: 1029 |
| Библиографическая ссылка | Lederberg, J. 1989. Does scientific progress come from projects, or people?. Current Contents, Life Sciences, 32(48): 5–12. |
| Библиографическая ссылка | Mandel, H. G. and Veseli, E. S. 1989. NIH funding. FASEB J., 3: 2322–23. |
| Библиографическая ссылка | Osmond, D. 1983. Malice's wonderland. Research funding and peer review. J. Neurobiol., 14: 95–112. |
