An Italian's View of Peer Review. (May 26, 2008)

The following is an excerpt from "Correspondence" received by Nature last week. It ought to be of some interest to those engaged in those governmental reviews which will ultimately affect research funding in Australia.

Among other matters the letter is notable for an absence of any reference to an ERA-like (Excellence in Research for Australia) system which is in fact a thinly disguised device to diminish direct assessment of research proposals by qualified peers -- being an additional micro-managerial layer to be stuccoed onto the brickwork.

_________________________________________

[A]s former chair of the health committee of the Italian Senate, I take exception to [the] implication that none of the major political parties recognizes science, technology and education as crucial for the future of the country's economy.

The 2007 and 2008 national budget laws, drawn up when the centre-left coalition was in power, allocated €96 million (US$149 million) to projects submitted by researchers under 40 years old. These are judged by an international committee comprising ten scientists under 40 — five from foreign institutions — selected according to impact factor and citation index scores. This alone is a revolutionary approach for the unregulated Italian system of research funding allocation.

In spite of such advances, Italy is still far behind in research investment, and this needs to change. But the crucial switch is not simply to increase funding. The way the new government should proceed is to reform the allocation criteria for funding and to start applying across the board the selection and evaluation rules of peer review. Such a system would acknowledge meritocracy and free researchers from the virtual slavery under which they have been kept by old academicians.

By applying international rules of peer review and evaluating grant applications only on the basis of merit, looking at curricula and objectives, comparing lists of publications and evaluating results, we will provide opportunities for Italy's scientists, thereby promoting the country's intellectual, cultural and economic growth.

Ignazio R. Marino

Department of Surgery, Jefferson Medical College, 19107 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, and Senate of the Republic of Italy, Piazza Madama snc, 00186 Rome, Italy

_________________________________________

From an Australian viewpoint surely what is required is not yet another layer of bureaucracy, which is relatively easy to erect but counterproductive, but rather an enhancement of peer review per se which if pursued will require far more competence and effort, but if realised will be of far greater benefit, not only to the research community but also to the nation.