Optimal allocation of proposals to reviewers to facilitate effective ranking

Management Science

Volumn 51, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 655-661

  Cook, Wade D ^a   Golany, Boaz ^b   Kress, Moshe ^c,d   Penn, Michal ^b   Raviv, Tal ^b  

^a YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

^c Center for Military Analyses   (Israel)

^d NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Peer review; Ranking procedures; Set covering

Indexed keywords

PEER REVIEWS; RANKING PROCEDURES; SET COVERING; VECTOR REPRESENTATIONS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION MAKING; HEURISTIC METHODS; INTEGER PROGRAMMING; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; SET THEORY; VECTORS;

DECISION THEORY;

EID: 22544435516     PISSN: 00251909     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1040.0290     Document Type: Review

References (12)

1. Bogart, K. P. 1975. Preference structures II: Distances between asymmetric relations. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 29(2) 254-262.
2. Campanario, J. M. 1998. Peer review for journals as it stands today. Sci. Comm. 19 181-211.
3. Cicchetti, D. V. 1991. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-entropy investigation. Behavioral Brain Sci. 14 119-186.
4. Cook, W., M. Kress. 1991. Ordinal Information and Preference Structures: Decision Models and Applications. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
5. Cook, W., L. Seiford. 1978. Priority ranking and consensus formation. Management Sci. 24(16) 1721-1732.
6. Dirk, L. 1999. A measure of originality: The elements of science source. Social Stud. Sci. 29(5) 765-776.
7. Garg, R. K. 1996. The influence of positive and negative wording and issue involvement on responses to Likert scales in marketing research. J. Marketing Res. Soc. 38(3) 235-246.
8. Hodgson, C. 1995. Evaluation of cardiovascular grant-in-aid applications by peer-review - Influence of internal and external reviewers and committees. Canadian J. Cardiology 11(10) 864-868.
9. Jayasinghe, U. W., H. W. Marsh, N. Bond. 2001. Peer review in the funding of research in higher education: The Australian experience. Ed. Eval. Policy Anal. 23(4) 343-364.
10. Kemeny, J. G., L. J. Snell. 1962. Preference ranking: An axiomatic approach. Mathematical Models in the Social Science, Chapter 2. Ginn, Boston, MA, 9-23.
11. Kirkwood, C. W., R. K. Sarin. 1985. Ranking with partial information - A method and an application. Oper. Res. 33(1) 38-48.
12. Langfeldt, L. 2001. The decision-making constraints and processes of grant peer review, and their effects on the review outcomes. Social Stud. Sci. 31(6) 820-841.