A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: Different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications

被引：61

作者：

Bornmann, Lutz ^{[1
]}

Leydesdorff, Loet ^{[2
]}

Van den Besselaar, Peter ^{[3
,4
]}

机构：

[1] ETH, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland

[2] Univ Amsterdam, ASCoR, NL-1012 CX Amsterdam, Netherlands

[3] Rathenau Inst, Sci Syst Assessment Dept, NL-2593 HW The Hague, Netherlands

[4] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Dept Org Sci, Amsterdam, Netherlands

来源：

JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS | 2010年 / 4卷 / 03期

关键词：

Grant allocation; Peer review; Bibliometric quality indicators; Convergent validity and predictive validity; Error; Citation rate; h-Index; H-INDEX; PERFORMANCE; INDICATORS; SCIENCE;

D O I：

10.1016/j.joi.2009.10.004

中图分类号：

TP39 [计算机的应用];

学科分类号：

081203 ; 0835 ;

摘要：

Combining different data sets with information on grant and fellowship applications submitted to two renowned funding agencies, we are able to compare their funding decisions (award and rejection) with scientometric performance indicators across two fields of science (life sciences and social sciences). The data sets involve 671 applications in social sciences and 668 applications in life sciences. In both fields, awarded applicants perform on average better than all rejected applicants. If only the most preeminent rejected applicants are considered in both fields, they score better than the awardees on citation impact. With regard to productivity we find differences between the fields. While the awardees in life sciences outperform on average the most preeminent rejected applicants, the situation is reversed in social sciences. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

引用

页码：211 / 220

页数：10

共 33 条

[31] Past performance, peer review and project selection: a case study in the social and behavioral sciences [J].