Institutionalized biases in the award of research grants: A preliminary analysis revisiting the principle of accumulative advantage

Research Policy

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 443-454

  Viner, Neil ^a   Powell, Philip ^b   Green, Rod ^b,c  

^a Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council UK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BATH   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Bias; Grants; Peer review

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; EDUCATION; PRODUCTIVITY; RESOURCE ALLOCATION;

BIAS; GRANTS; PEER REVIEW;

SOCIAL ASPECTS;

EID: 1842423101     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2003.09.005     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Abrams P.A. The predictive ability of peer review of grant proposals: the case of ecology and the US National Science Foundation. Social Studies of Science. 21:1991;111-132.
2. Babcock L., Loewenstein G. Explaining bargaining impasse: the role of self-serving biases. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 11:1997;109-126.
3. Bazerman, M.H., Loewenstein, G., Moore, D.A., 2002. Why Good Accountants Do Bad Audits. Harvard Business Review, November 2002, pp. 97-102.
4. Blake, M., LaValle, I., 2000. Who Applies for Research Funding? The Wellcome Trust, London.
5. Braun D. The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science. Research Policy. 27:1998;807-821.
6. Chubin, D., Hackett, E., 1990. Peerless Science: Peer Review and US Science Policy. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
7. Cole, S., Cole, J.R., 1973. Social Stratification of Science. University of Chicago Press, IL.
8. Cole, S., Rubin, L., Cole, J.R., 1978. Peer Review in the National Science Foundation. Phase One of a Study. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
9. Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a triple helix of University-Industry- Government relations. Research policy. 29:2000;109-123.
10. Glantz S.A., Bero L.A. Inappropriate and appropriate selection of "peers" in grant review. Journal of the American Medical Association. 272:1994;114-116.
11. Grant J., Burden S., Breen G. No evidence of sexism in peer review. Nature. 390:1997;438.
12. Groenveld L., Koller N., Mullins N. The advisors of the United States National Science Foundation. Social Studies of Science. 5:1975;343-354.
13. Horrobin D. Peer review of grant applications: a harbinger of mediocrity in clinical research. The Lancet. 348:1996;1293-1295.
14. Manwell, C., Baker, C.M., 1982. Reform peer review: the Peters and Ceci study in the context of other current studies of scientific evaluation. In: Harnad, S. (Ed.), Peer Commentary on Peer Review - A Case Study in Scientific Quality Control, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 37-41.
15. McCutcheon C.W. Peer review: treacherous servant, disastrous master. Technology review. 94(7):1997;28-38.
16. Mehlenbacher B. The rhetorical nature of academic research funding. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. 37:1994;157-162.
17. Merton R.K. The Matthew Effect in science. Science. 159:1968;56-63.
18. Mitroff I., Chubin D. Peer review at the NSF: a dialectical policy analysis. Social Studies of Science. 9:1979;199-232.
19. Peters D.P., Ceci S.J. Peer review practices in psychological journals: the fate of published articles submitted again. Behavioural and Brain Science. 5:1982;187-195.
20. Pfeffer J., Salancik G. Organisational decision making as a political process. Administrative Science Quarterly. 19:1974;135-151.
21. Sullivan D.L. Keeping the rhetoric orthodox: forum control in science. Technical Communication Quarterly. 9:2000;125-146.
22. Travis G.D.L., Collins H. New light on old boys - cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system. Science, Technology and Human Values. 16:1991;322-341.
23. Wenneras C., Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer review. Nature. 387:1997;341-343.
24. Wenneras C., Wold A. A chair of one's own. Nature. 408:2000;647.
25. Wessely S. Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? The Lancet. 352:1998;301-305.
26. Ziman, J., 1994. Prometheus Bound: Science in a Dynamic Steady State, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
27. Zuckerman H. Nobel laureates in science: patterns of productivity, collaboration and authorship. American Sociological Review. 32:1967;391-403.
28. Zuckerman, H., 1977, Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States, Free Press, New York.