The aim of peer review is to separate the wheat from the chaff for publication and research funding. In the excessive competition, this mechanism would only select the wheat of mainstream. Up to now, almost all discussions on the consequence of the short-comings of peer review are limited to qualitatively description. I propose a model of “peer-group-assessed-grant-based-funding-system” combined with tenure system and over-competitive research funding review process. It is the first on the quantitatively investigation which dramatizes the current short-comings of the process. My simulation shows that it takes about two or three generations of researchers for the mainstream of a complicated research topic obtaining monopoly supremacy, with only the aid of the mechanism the model described. Based on the computation results, suggestions are proposed to avoid loss of self-correction capability on popularity determined single research direction which could be wrong on very complicated research topics.
Claveria, LE, Guallar, E, Cami, J, Conde, J, Pastor, R, Ricoy, JR, Rodriguez-Farre, E, Ruiz-Palomo, F, Munoz, E2000Does peer review predict the performance of research projects in health sciences?. Scientometrics47:11–23.
Claveria, LE, Guallar, E, Cami, J, Conde, J, Pastor, R, Ricoy, JR, Rodriguez-Farre, E, Ruiz-Palomo, F, Munoz, E2000Does peer review predict the performance of research projects in health sciences?. Scientometrics47:11–2310.1023/A:1005609624130.)| false
Jayasinghe, UW, Marsh, HW, Bond, N2001Peer review in the funding of research in higher education: The Australian experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis23:343–36410.3102/01623737023004343.)| false
Plerou, V, Amaral, LAN, Gopikrishnan, P, Meyer, M, Stanley, HE1999Similarities between the growth dynamics of university research and of competitive economic activities. Nature400:433–43710.1038/22719.)| false