A new reader trial approach to peer review in funding research grants: An Australian experiment

No abstract is available for this paper.

• Publication year

  2006

• Venue

  Scientometrics

• Publication date

  2006-12-01

• Fields of study

  Sociology, Computer Science, Education

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.1007/s11192-006-0171-4
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Down to earth

  2019cited by this paper
• Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees' decisions

  2005cited by this paper
• Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences?

  2005cited by this paper
• Multilevel Statistical Models

  2005cited by this paper
• A User's Guide to MLwiN version 2.0

  2004cited by this paper
• How to Review a Manuscript: A “Down-to-Earth” Approach

  2004cited by this paper
• Peer Review: An Essential Step in the Publishing Process

  2004cited by this paper
• Impartial Judgment by the “Gatekeepers” of Science: Fallibility and Accountability in the Peer Review Process

  2003cited by this paper
• Peer review in the assessment and funding of research by the Australian Research Council

  2003cited by this paper
• A multilevel cross‐classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings

  2003cited by this paper
• The publishing dilemma of the American Psychological Association.

  2002cited by this paper
• Peer Review in the Funding of Research in Higher Education: The Australian Experience

  2001influential reference
• Multiple membership multiple classification (MMMC) models

  2001cited by this paper
• Evidence on peer review—scientific quality control or smokescreen?

  1999cited by this paper
• Multiple Evaluations of Grant Proposals by Independent Assessors: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Evaluations of Reliability, Validity, and Structure.

  1999influential reference
• Multilevel analysis : an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling

  1999influential reference
• Peer review and panel decisions in the assessment of Australian Research Council project grant applicants: what counts in a highly competitive context?

  1998cited by this paper
• Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.

  1998cited by this paper
• Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises

  1996cited by this paper
• The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research

  1996cited by this paper
• Perceptions of the Australian research council large grants scheme: Differences between successful and unsuccessful applicants

  1996cited by this paper
• Evaluation of cardiovascular grant-in-aid applications by peer review: influence of internal and external reviewers and committees.

  1995cited by this paper
• Guardians of Science: Fairness and Reliability of Peer Review

  1994cited by this paper
• Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable.

  1994cited by this paper
• Grants Peer Review in Theory and Practice

  1994influential reference
• Reflections on the peer review process

  1991influential reference
• The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation

  1991cited by this paper
• The Reliability of a Certain University Examination Compared with the Precision of Absolute Judgements

  1990cited by this paper
• The Peer Review Process Used to Evaluate Manuscripts Submitted to Academic Journals: Interjudgmental Reliability

  1989cited by this paper
• Refereeing and Peer Review. Part 1. Opfnion and Conjecture on the Effectiveness of Refereeing

  1986cited by this paper
• Open exchange and epistemic progress.

  1985cited by this paper
• Insiders, outsiders, and efficiency in a National Science Foundation panel.

  1985cited by this paper
• Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again

  1982cited by this paper
• Reform peer review: The Peters and Ceci study in the context of other current studies of scientific evaluation

  1982cited by this paper
• Reviewer “bias”: Do Peters and Ceci protest too much?

  1982cited by this paper
• Interjudgmental reliability of reviews for the Journal of Educational Psychology..

  1981cited by this paper
• Reliability of reviews for the American Psychologist: A biostatistical assessment of the data.

  1980influential reference
• Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.

  1979cited by this paper
• The Act of Creation: Creative Processes in Science

  1978cited by this paper
• IMPROVING MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION PROCEDURES

  1972cited by this paper

• Defining quality in peer review reports: a scoping review

  2025cites this paper
• Registered report protocol: Factors associated with inter-rater agreement in grant peer review

  2025cites this paper
• Variability and negligence: grant peer review panels evaluating impact ex ante

  2024cites this paper
• Status compensation effect in grant applications: applicants of lower status create longer titles for their grant proposals in China

  2024cites this paper
• Ranking versus rating in peer review of research grant applications

  2023cites this paper
• Peer reviewer topic choice and its impact on interrater reliability: A mixed-method study

  2022cites this paper
• Does reviewing experience reduce disagreement in proposals evaluation? Insights from Marie Skłodowska-Curie and COST Actions

  2021cites this paper
• zoni Back to Basics ! The Educational Gap of Online Investors and the Conundrum of Virtual

  2018cites this paper
• Il Mulino-Rivisteweb

  2018cites this paper
• Inter-rater reliability and validity of peer reviews in an interdisciplinary field

  2017cites this paper
• The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation

  2017cites this paper
• A statistical approach to calibrating the scores of biased reviewers of scientific papers

  2016cites this paper
• EVALUATION OF RESEARCH PROJECTS OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS IN AN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT USING TOPSIS METHOD

  2016cites this paper
• Research project evaluation and selection: an evidential reasoning rule-based method for aggregating peer review information with reliabilities

  2015cites this paper
• Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management

  2015cites this paper
• A statistical approach to calibrating the scores of biased reviewers of scientific papers

  2015cites this paper
• Expert Evaluation in the Flow of Information Science

  2014cites this paper
• Publisher's Copyright Statement: Use Policy Educational Research, Peer Review and Editor Engagement *

  2014cites this paper
• Assigning evaluators to research grant applications: the case of Slovak Research and Development Agency

  2014cites this paper
• How good is a model based on bibliometric indicators in predicting the final decisions made by peers?

  2014cites this paper
• Cognitive Biases in Government Procurement – An Experimental Study

  2014cites this paper
• Definition of a model based on bibliometric indicators for assessing applicants to academic positions

  2014cites this paper
• Group size, h-index, and efficiency in publishing in top journals explain expert panel assessments of research group quality and productivity

  2013cites this paper
• Indicadores bibliométricos de desempenho científico : estudo da aplicação de indicadores na avaliação individual do desempenho científico

  2013cites this paper
• Indicadores de gestão na revisão por pares: confiabilidade da revisão recíproca anônima de propostas de mestrado │ Peer review indicators: reliability of a reciprocal anonymous review of masters proposals

  2013cites this paper
• Opening the Black-Box of Peer Review: An Agent-Based Model of Scientist Behaviour

  2013cites this paper
• Researching the Reliability of Accreditation Survey Teams: Lessons Learnt When Things Went Awry

  2013cites this paper
• Saint Matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure

  2012cites this paper
• Additional Information: Use Policy Educational Research, Peer Review and Editor Engagement *

  2012cites this paper
• Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model

  2011cites this paper
• The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science

  2011cites this paper
• Peering Into Peer Review

  2010cites this paper
• A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants

  2010influential citation
• Quality and Peer Review of Research: An Adjudicating Role for Editors

  2010cites this paper
• Gender Effects in the Peer Reviews of Grant Proposals: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Comparing Traditional and Multilevel Approaches

  2009cites this paper
• Women's underrepresentation in science: sociocultural and biological considerations.

  2009cites this paper
• Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.

  2008cites this paper
• Journal of Informetrics Saint Matthew Strikes Again: an Agent-based Model of Peer Review and the Scientific Community Structure

  year unknowncites this paper
• Improving the Peer-review Process for Grant Applications

  year unknowncites this paper