Article first published online: 3 JUN 2011
©1994. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union
Volume 75, Issue 31, page 354, 2 August 1994
How to Cite
1994), Peerless review?, Eos Trans. AGU, 75(31), 354–354, doi:10.1029/EO075i031p00354-05.(
- Issue published online: 3 JUN 2011
- Article first published online: 3 JUN 2011
- Cited By
The practice of peer review in the United States for awarding federal funds to many researchers stands as the “best available method for allocating research funds,” according to a new report by the General Accounting Office (GAO). The report found the system, which largely bases grant awards on the substantive merit of the proposals, works “reasonably well.” However, the system is not without its loopholes. The GAO report, which mainly focused on the National Science Foundation, National Institutes for Health, and National Endowment for the Humanities, noted that defining objectivity is extremely difficult. For starters, GAO found that researchers who are established in a given field do have an easier time securing grants than those who are just entering a field.