Research Council to review use of anonymous referees
In response to the implementation of the recently amended national Freedom of Information Act, the Research Council will review its practice of keeping the identities of referees who assess grant proposals confidential.
A peer review process in which the identities of the referees remain anonymous is generally recognised as the best way to assess scientific work. The reasoning is that it ensures a higher quality of assessment because the referees can express themselves more freely.
The practice of not disclosing the identities of the referees who assess articles and grant proposals is commonly employed by scientific journals, the EU system and most research-funding organisations throughout the world.
Decisions taken on a sound scientific basis
The Research Council considers it essential to obtain high-quality referee assessments to enable programme boards and committees to take good decisions on a sound scientific basis. The promise of anonymity may also be an important factor in recruiting well-qualified referees. Many researchers today use a considerable amount of time on assessing grant proposals and drafts of articles.
(Photo: Shutterstock)
The referees used by the Research Council to assess grant proposals are leading researchers in their fields and very often come from outside Norway. Referees may be asked to submit individual assessments or may be convened as a group to prepare a joint panel assessment.
Current routines to be reviewed
Research Council guidelines state that the names of the referees are not to be made known to the applicants prior to or during the assessment process. According to current practice, a complete list of the names of the referees used for a specific call for proposals is published only after the decision on grant allocations has been taken. No information regarding which referees have assessed the individual proposals is provided.
However, in light of the recent amendment of the Freedom of Information Act the practice of anonymous referees must now be reassessed. It must be determined whether this practice is still permissible under the new provisions of the act, and if so, on what grounds it may be exercised. The issue will initially be assessed purely in terms of the legal considerations.
- Published:
- 25.08.2010
- Last updated:
- 25.08.2010
See also
Contact
- Anne Kjersti Fahlvik Executive Director 22 03 72 80 akf@forskningsradet.no
