Spectral lines: Judging the judges

Peer review, a subject of perennial interest to authors and editors, is once again in the headlines. This time the subject merited the interest of the U.S. Congress, which wondered if the National Science Foundation's use of the peer review process in helping award grants is fair and efficient. The premise of the Congressional look-see was that perhaps Congress itself should assume more of a role in the review process. Underlying the probe was the feeling that the peer review process is not perfect, that reviewers can be biased, that they may be in conflict of interest, or that they may misuse their anonymity. While all of these suppositions may, on occasion, be true, no one has yet proposed a clearly superior system. Harold Davis, editor of Physics Today, in commenting on the Congressional probe, puts the onus on the agency program officers to deal with the hazards of conflict and bias that may occasionally arise — a delegation of responsibility with which we must agree. (There is a clear parallel between refereeing papers and awarding grants — in neither case does the final decision rest with the reviewers.)