Bibliometric indicators to assist the peer review process in grant decisions

Research Evaluation

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 47-52

  Lewison, Grant ^a   Cottrell, Robert ^a   Dixon, Diane ^a,b  

^a WELLCOME TRUST SANGER INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^b Wellcome Trust ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0344151580     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/147154499781777621     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. M Boden (1990), Peer Review: A Report to the Advisory Board for the Research Councils from the Working Group on Peer Review (Advisory Board for the Research Councils, London, November).
2. P M D Collins (1991), "Quantitative assessment of departmental research: a survey of academics' views", SEPSU Policy Study no 5, The Royal Society/Fellowship of Engineering, London.
3. R Gillett and J Harrow (1993), "Prescriptions for medical research. 2. Is medical research well served by peer review?", British Medical Journal, 306(6893), 19 June, pages 1672-1675.
4. S Griffiths (1993), "QC tells of dental rank bias" and "Dental institute loses High Court bid", The Times Higher, 31 July, pages 1 and 6, and August, page 2.
5. D F Horrobin (1996), "Peer review of grant applications - a harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research", The Lancet, 348(9037), pages 1293-1295.
6. G Lewison, J Anderson and J Jack (1995), "Assessing track records", Nature, 377, 26 October, page 671.
7. H Moxham and J Anderson (1992), "Peer review: a view from the inside", Science and Technology Policy, February, pages 7-15.
8. A F J van Raan (1998), "Assessment of social sciences: the use of advanced bibliometric methods as a necessary complement of peer review", Research Evaluation, 7(1), April, pages 2-6.
9. ??E J Rinia, Th N van Leeuwen, H G van Vuren and A F J van Raan (1998), "Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria: evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands", Research Policy, 27, May, pages 95-107.
10. C Wennerȧs and A Wold (1997), "Nepotism and sexism in peer-review", Nature, 387, pages 341-343.
11. G Williams (1998), "Misleading, unscientific, and unjust: the United Kingdom's research assessment exercise", British Medical Journal, 316, 4 April, pages 1079-1082.
12. F Q Wood (1997), The Peer Review Process (Australian Research Council, Report 54, January).