The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies.

There is a paucity of data in the literature concerning the validation of the grant application peer review process, which is used to help direct billions of dollars in research funds. Ultimately, this validation will hinge upon empirical data relating the output of funded projects to the prediction...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Stephen A Gallo, Afton S Carpenter, David Irwin, Caitlin D McPartland, Joseph Travis, Sofie Reynders, Lisa A Thompson, Scott R Glisson
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2014
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/193683a1e52e45c9ab5bc3d71216d006
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:193683a1e52e45c9ab5bc3d71216d006
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:193683a1e52e45c9ab5bc3d71216d0062021-11-25T06:02:03ZThe validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0106474https://doaj.org/article/193683a1e52e45c9ab5bc3d71216d0062014-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/25184367/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203There is a paucity of data in the literature concerning the validation of the grant application peer review process, which is used to help direct billions of dollars in research funds. Ultimately, this validation will hinge upon empirical data relating the output of funded projects to the predictions implicit in the overall scientific merit scores from the peer review of submitted applications. In an effort to address this need, the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) conducted a retrospective analysis of peer review data of 2,063 applications submitted to a particular research program and the bibliometric output of the resultant 227 funded projects over an 8-year period. Peer review scores associated with applications were found to be moderately correlated with the total time-adjusted citation output of funded projects, although a high degree of variability existed in the data. Analysis over time revealed that as average annual scores of all applications (both funded and unfunded) submitted to this program improved with time, the average annual citation output per application increased. Citation impact did not correlate with the amount of funds awarded per application or with the total annual programmatic budget. However, the number of funded applications per year was found to correlate well with total annual citation impact, suggesting that improving funding success rates by reducing the size of awards may be an efficient strategy to optimize the scientific impact of research program portfolios. This strategy must be weighed against the need for a balanced research portfolio and the inherent high costs of some areas of research. The relationship observed between peer review scores and bibliometric output lays the groundwork for establishing a model system for future prospective testing of the validity of peer review formats and procedures.Stephen A GalloAfton S CarpenterDavid IrwinCaitlin D McPartlandJoseph TravisSofie ReyndersLisa A ThompsonScott R GlissonPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 9, Iss 9, p e106474 (2014)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Stephen A Gallo Afton S Carpenter David Irwin Caitlin D McPartland Joseph Travis Sofie Reynders Lisa A Thompson Scott R Glisson The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies.
description	There is a paucity of data in the literature concerning the validation of the grant application peer review process, which is used to help direct billions of dollars in research funds. Ultimately, this validation will hinge upon empirical data relating the output of funded projects to the predictions implicit in the overall scientific merit scores from the peer review of submitted applications. In an effort to address this need, the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) conducted a retrospective analysis of peer review data of 2,063 applications submitted to a particular research program and the bibliometric output of the resultant 227 funded projects over an 8-year period. Peer review scores associated with applications were found to be moderately correlated with the total time-adjusted citation output of funded projects, although a high degree of variability existed in the data. Analysis over time revealed that as average annual scores of all applications (both funded and unfunded) submitted to this program improved with time, the average annual citation output per application increased. Citation impact did not correlate with the amount of funds awarded per application or with the total annual programmatic budget. However, the number of funded applications per year was found to correlate well with total annual citation impact, suggesting that improving funding success rates by reducing the size of awards may be an efficient strategy to optimize the scientific impact of research program portfolios. This strategy must be weighed against the need for a balanced research portfolio and the inherent high costs of some areas of research. The relationship observed between peer review scores and bibliometric output lays the groundwork for establishing a model system for future prospective testing of the validity of peer review formats and procedures.
format	article
author	Stephen A Gallo Afton S Carpenter David Irwin Caitlin D McPartland Joseph Travis Sofie Reynders Lisa A Thompson Scott R Glisson
author_facet	Stephen A Gallo Afton S Carpenter David Irwin Caitlin D McPartland Joseph Travis Sofie Reynders Lisa A Thompson Scott R Glisson
author_sort	Stephen A Gallo
title	The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies.
title_short	The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies.
title_full	The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies.
title_fullStr	The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies.
title_full_unstemmed	The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies.
title_sort	validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2014
url	https://doaj.org/article/193683a1e52e45c9ab5bc3d71216d006
work_keys_str_mv	AT stephenagallo thevalidationofpeerreviewthroughresearchimpactmeasuresandtheimplicationsforfundingstrategies AT aftonscarpenter thevalidationofpeerreviewthroughresearchimpactmeasuresandtheimplicationsforfundingstrategies AT davidirwin thevalidationofpeerreviewthroughresearchimpactmeasuresandtheimplicationsforfundingstrategies AT caitlindmcpartland thevalidationofpeerreviewthroughresearchimpactmeasuresandtheimplicationsforfundingstrategies AT josephtravis thevalidationofpeerreviewthroughresearchimpactmeasuresandtheimplicationsforfundingstrategies AT sofiereynders thevalidationofpeerreviewthroughresearchimpactmeasuresandtheimplicationsforfundingstrategies AT lisaathompson thevalidationofpeerreviewthroughresearchimpactmeasuresandtheimplicationsforfundingstrategies AT scottrglisson thevalidationofpeerreviewthroughresearchimpactmeasuresandtheimplicationsforfundingstrategies AT stephenagallo validationofpeerreviewthroughresearchimpactmeasuresandtheimplicationsforfundingstrategies AT aftonscarpenter validationofpeerreviewthroughresearchimpactmeasuresandtheimplicationsforfundingstrategies AT davidirwin validationofpeerreviewthroughresearchimpactmeasuresandtheimplicationsforfundingstrategies AT caitlindmcpartland validationofpeerreviewthroughresearchimpactmeasuresandtheimplicationsforfundingstrategies AT josephtravis validationofpeerreviewthroughresearchimpactmeasuresandtheimplicationsforfundingstrategies AT sofiereynders validationofpeerreviewthroughresearchimpactmeasuresandtheimplicationsforfundingstrategies AT lisaathompson validationofpeerreviewthroughresearchimpactmeasuresandtheimplicationsforfundingstrategies AT scottrglisson validationofpeerreviewthroughresearchimpactmeasuresandtheimplicationsforfundingstrategies
_version_	1718414265038143488

The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies.

Ejemplares similares