In her editorial on "RISK" (12 July, P. 109), M. McNutt confronts a dilemma shared by reviewers of grant proposals and journal manuscripts: how to remain skeptical, yet open-minded. Implicit in her commitment "to make good decisions in risky matters" is the structure of the review process. But this must be made explicit: How can participants in the review process control or balance biases to achieve fair decisions? To be human is to be biased, as research on "implicit" or "unconscious" bias demonstrates (1). That is where the judgment of editors and program officers is ultimately tested: How do they weigh the recommendations of reviewers who view risky ideas through intellectual lenses colored by knowledge, experience, and their own competitive juices? In short, "examining the evidence with an open, unbiased mind" does not suffice. The structures implemented under the umbrella of "peer review" must work to subject those individual reviews to something that editors present as a defensibly collective decision (2), one that authors and reviewers alike deem acceptable.
展开▼
