The Journal of Scanning Microscopy discloses reviewers, and publishes both sides' arguments at the end of each paper. Reviews are more constructive than disruptive. Ideas that reviews considered worthless are often later presented at meetings. Nonetheless, anonymity prevents applicants from pressing charges, that is, at least morally.
Funding Mechanisms
The power bestowed upon the reviewers to disqualify new ideas based on "unpublished" observations has to be removed from the process, unless applicants ignored peer-reviewed-published information. An example of weakness in a summary statement: "Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed project will lead to new technologies or applications of knowledge that contribute . . . to the mission or health and welfare of the American people." The RFA did not state this condition, and the aims and hypo
| 1 min read
Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
1:00
Share
Interested in reading more?
Become a Member of
Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member? Login Here
