Peer review in the funding of research in higher education: The Australian experience

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 343-364

  Jayasinghe, Upali W ^b   Marsh, Herbert W ^a   Bond, Nigel ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035566452     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/01623737023004343     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Allison, P. D., & Stewart, J. A. (1974). Productivity differences among scientists: Evidence for accumulative advantage. American Sociologist Review, 39, 596-606.
2. Australian Research Council. (1996). ARC members' handbook: A guide to the grant selection cycle for large grants, research fellowships, international fellowships, collaborative research grants, and Australian postgraduate awards (industry). Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.
3. Bazeley, P. (1998). Peer review and panel decisions in the assessment of Australian Research Council project grant applicants: What counts in a highly competitive context. Higher Education, 35, 435-452.
4. Bazeley, P., Kemp, L., Stevens, K., Asmar, C., Grbich, C., Marsh, H. W., & Bhatal, R. (1996). Waiting in the wings: A study of early career academic researchers in Australia (Commissioned Report No. 50). Canberra, Australia: National Board of Employment, Education and Training.
5. Bond, N., & Hesketh, B. (1998). A report on the "reader trial" conducted by panel A7A (psychology and education). Sydney, Australia: University of Western Sydney.
6. Chubin, D. E. (1994). Grants peer review in theory and practice. Evaluation Review, 18, 20-30.
7. Cicchetti, D. V. (1991a). The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 119-135.
8. Cicchetti, D. V. (1991b). Reflections from the peer review mirror. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 167-186.
9. Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 958-977.
10. Cole, S., Rubin, L., & Cole, J. R. (1977). Peer review and the support of science, Scientific American, 237, 34-41.
11. Daniel, H. D. (1993). Guardians of science: Fairness and reliability of peer review. Weinheim, Germany: Verlagsgesellschaft.
12. Emery, J. A., Meyers, H. W., and Hunter, D. E. (1992). NIH FIRST awards: Testing background factors for funding against Peer Review. Journal of the Society of Research Administrators 24(2), 7-15.
13. Garfield, E. (1986). Refereeing and peer review (Pt. 1): Opinion and conjecture on the effectiveness of refereeing. Current Contents, 31, 3-11.
14. Gilbert, R. J., Williams, E. S., & Lundberg, G. D. (1994). Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? Journal of the American Medical Association, 272(2), 139-142.
15. Giles, M. W., Patterson, D., & Mizell, F. (1989). Discretion in editorial decision making: The case of the Journal of Politics. PS: Political Science and Politics, 22(1), 58-62.
16. Glenn, N. D. (1976). The journal article review process: Some proposals for change. American Sociologist, 11, 179-185.
17. Goldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel statistical models. London: Edward Arnold.
18. Hammel, E. (1980). Report of the Task Force on Faculty Renewal. Berkeley: University of California.
19. Harnard, S. (Ed.). (1982). Peer commentary on peer review [Special issue]. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 5 (2).
20. Hogg, V. R., & Tanis, E. A. (2001). Probability and statistical inference (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
21. Johnson, R. A., & Bhattacharyya, G. K. (1992). Statistics principles and methods. New York: Wiley.
22. Klahr, D. (1985). Insiders, outsiders, and efficiency in a National Science Foundation panel. American Psychologist, 40, 148-154.
23. Lindsey, D. (1976). Distinction, achievement, and editorial board membership. American Psychologist, 31, 799-804.
24. Lindsey, D. (1977). Participation and influence in publication review proceedings: A reply. American Psychologist, 32, 579-585.
25. Lindsey, D. (1978). The scientific publication system in social science. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
26. Mahoney, M. J. (1985). Open exchange and epistemic progress. American Psychologist, 40(1), 29-39.
27. Marsh, H. W., & Ball, S. (1981). Interjudgmental reliability of review for the Journal of Educational Psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 872-880.
28. Marsh, H. W., & Ball, S. (1989). The peer review process used to evaluate manuscripts submitted to academic journals. Journal of Experimental Education, 57, 151-169.
29. Marsh, H. W., & Ball, S. (1991). Reflections on the peer review process. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 157-158.
30. Marsh, H. W., & Bazeley, P. (1999). Multiple evaluations of grant proposals by independent external reviewers: Confirmatory factor analysis evaluations of reliability, validity, and structure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 1-30.
31. Narin, F., Olivastro, D., & Stevens, K. A. (1994). Bibliometrics: Theory, practice, and problems. Evaluation Review, 18, 65-76.
32. Osmond, D. H. (1983). Malice's wonderland: Research funding and peer review. Journal of Neurobiology, 14, 95-112.
33. Over, R. (1995). The Australian Research Council Large Grants Scheme: Problems, concerns and recommendations for change. Australian Universities Review, 38, 32-36.
34. Perlman, D. (1982). Reviewer "bias": Do Peters and Ceci protest too much? Behavioural and Brain Sciences (5), 231-232.
35. Price, D. J. S. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
36. Shout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.
37. SPSS. (1999). SPSS for Windows (Version 10). Chicago: SPSS.
38. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics. New York: Harper Collins.
39. Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
40. Wood, F. Q. (1997). The peer review process (Commissioned Report No. 54). National Board of Employment Education and Training. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.
41. Wood, F. Q., Meek, V. L., & Harman, G. (1992). The research grant application process: Learning from failure? Higher Education, 24, 1-23.
42. Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalization, structure, and function of the referee system. Minerva, 9, 66-100.