Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 312 items for :

  • "Peer review" x
  • All content x
Clear All

in research is effective and delivers public benefits. Until recently, the conduct of these evaluation exercises has been founded on the so-called peer-review methodology, where research products submitted by institutions are evaluated by

Restricted access

problematic when it comes to what methods to apply. The recent development of bibliometric techniques has led various governments to introduce bibliometrics, where applicable, in support or substitution for more traditional peer review. In the United Kingdom

Restricted access

Introduction Following the development of science almost from its origination, peer review (Spier 2002a ) process influences the scientific paper publication (Grivell 2006 ; Gura 2002 ; Rocha 2001 ; Lawrence 2003 ) and

Restricted access

) makes scientific funding and journal space difficult to keep up with demand. Scientists face increased competition of funding and publication (Alberts et al. 2008 ). The peer-review process is a turf battle with the final premium of the

Restricted access

Introduction Peer review is quintessential in science (Benda and Engels 2011 ). Since almost all research articles published in journals undergo the peer review process, it is an essential extension of the scientific process

Restricted access
Scientometrics
Authors: Ludo Waltman, Nees Jan van Eck, Thed N. van Leeuwen, Martijn S. Visser, and Anthony F. J. van Raan

147 Dutch research groups in chemistry and studies how two bibliometric indicators, namely the h -index (Hirsch 2005 ) and the CPP/FCSm indicator, correlate with the quality judgment of a peer review committee. Based on the data reported by Van Raan

Open access

Abstract  

In national research assessment exercises that take the peer review approach, research organizations are evaluated on the basis of a subset of their scientific production. The dimension of the subset varies from nation to nation but is typically set as a proportional function of the number of researchers employed at each research organization. However, scientific fertility varies from discipline to discipline, meaning that the representativeness of such a subset also varies according to discipline. The rankings resulting from the assessments could be quite sensitive to the size of the share of articles selected for evaluation. The current work examines this issue, developing empirical evidence of variations in ranking due changes in the dimension of the subset of products evaluated. The field of observation is represented by the scientific production from the hard sciences of the entire Italian university system, from 2001 to 2003.

Restricted access

Abstract  

In a replication of the high-profile contribution by Wennerås and Wold on grant peer-review, we investigate new applications processed by the medical research council in Sweden. Introducing a normalisation method for ranking applications that takes into account the differences between committees, we also use a normalisation of bibliometric measures by field. Finally, we perform a regression analysis with interaction effects. Our results indicate that female principal investigators (PIs) receive a bonus of 10% on scores, in relation to their male colleagues. However, male and female PIs having a reviewer affiliation collect an even higher bonus, approximately 15%. Nepotism seems to be a persistent problem in the Swedish grant peer review system.

Restricted access

lectures in this field and getting brilliant feedback by the participants, we decided to publish a paper discussing this topic in detail. The peer-review process: importance and reasons As the quality and validity of scientific manuscripts are some of the

Open access

Abstract  

Results of a study designed to investigate the peer review system at theDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft are presented. 242 applications for grants and 639 corresponding reviews were analysed to explore criteria actually used by peers in assessing the quality of proposals. The findings show a wide range of criteria used, an uneven distribution of positive and negative evaluation along these criteria, high inter-referee agreement and different degrees of impact of the evaluations on the overall recommendation.

Restricted access