Abstract
The article starts with the description of various demands formulated towards the peer review process and the outcomes of the research projects assessment: validity, reliability, effectiveness, fairness, efficiency and accountability. The reasons for criticism towards the peer review system and its various terms of reference are described. Next, various models of the peer review system employed by various countries and by various research councils or foundations and properties of the Polish model as compared to the foreign ones, are presented. Also, different solutions employed by the particular sections of the State Committee for Scientific Research; the reviewers selection, the assessment questionnaire, the arrangements for the review group meetings, the consensus accomplishment, the ranking and voting procedures are presented in the paragraph demonstrating the operational mode of the Polish system. Finally, the external context, decisive to the employed solutions and the system effectiveness — the political, cultural and financial circumstances of the scientific activities in Poland and structural interlinks influencing the allocation of funds for particular projects and fields of sciences are reviewed.
References
Abrams P. 1991 The Predictive Ability ofPeer Review o f Grant Proposals: the Case ofEcology at the National Science Foundation, „Social Studies of Science”, vol. 21, nr 1, February.
Cole J., Cole S., Simon G. 1981 A Chance and Consensus in Peer Review, „Science”, vol. 214, November 20.
Chubin D., HackettE. 1990 Peerless Science. Peer Review and the US Science Policy, Albany, New York: Sunny Press.
Evaluation... 1991 Evaluation o f Research. A Selection o f Current Practices, Paris: OECD.
HackettE. 1992 More to Do about Peer Review. Annual Meeting ofthe Society for Social Studies o f Science, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Harnad S. 1985 Rational Disagreement in Peer Review, „Science, Technology and Humań Values”, vol. 10, issue 3, Summer.
MertonT. 1968 The Mathew Effect in Science, „Science”, vol. 185, January 5.
Mitroff I., Chubin D., 1979 Peer Review at the National Science Foundation. A Dialectical Policy Analysis, „Social Studies of Science”, nr 9.
Noble J. 1974 Peer Review: Quality Control o f Applied Social Research, „Science”, vol. 185, September 13.
Percentiling... 1990 Percentiling of Priority Scores Assigned by NIH Initial Review Group. Background, NIH, May.
Roy R. 1984 Alternatives to Peer Review, a Contribution to Theory ofScientific Choice, „Minerva”, vol. XXII, nr 3-4, Autumn-Winter.
Roy R. 1985 Funding Science, the Real Defects o j Peer Review and an Alternative to It, „Science, Technology and Human Values”, vol. 10, nr 3, Summer.
Travis G., Collins H. 1991 New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System, „Science, Technology and Humań Values”, vol. 16, nr 3, Summer.