Does peer review predict the performance of research projects in health sciences?

Scientometrics

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 11-23

  Clavería, L Erik ^a   Guallar, Eliseo ^b   Camí, Jordi ^c   Conde, José ^d   Pastor, Roberto ^b   Ricoy, José R ^e   Rodríguez Farré, Eduardo ^f   Ruiz Palomo, Fernando ^g   Muñoz, Emilio ^h  

^a HOSPITAL GENERAL DE SEGOVIA   (Spain)

^b INSTITUTO DE SALUD CARLOS III   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITAT POMPEU FABRA   (Spain)

^d INSTITUTO DE SALUD CARLOS III   (Spain)

^e HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO 12 DE OCTUBRE   (Spain)

^f CSIC   (Spain)

^g HOSPITAL RAMÓN Y CAJAL   (Spain)

^h Forest Research Centre   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23844502124     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1005609624130     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. N. J. BRKETT, The review process for applied-research grant proposals: suggestions for revision, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 150(1994) 1227-1229.
2. R. SMITH, Problems with peer review and alternatives, British Medical Journal, 296 (1988) 774-777.
3. S. A. GLANTZ, L. A. BERO, Inappropriate and appropriate selection of peers' in grant review, The Journal of the American Medical Association, 111 (1994) 114-116.
4. A. T. EVANS, R. A. MCNUTT, S, W. FLETCHER, R. H. FLETCHER, The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews, Journal of General Internal Medicine, 8 (1993) 422-428.
5. S. WEBSELY, Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?, Lancet, 352 (1998) 301-305.
6. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, NIH peer review of research grant applications, US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, 1996.
7. BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH RESEARCH PROGRAMME, BIOMED 2 (1994-1998), Guide to the evaluation and the selection of proposals, European Comission, Directorate General XII for Science, Research and Development, Brussels, 1996, 1-22.
8. E. GUALLAR, J. CONDE, M. A. DE LA CAL, J. M. MARTÍN-MORENO, en nombre del Grupo de Evaluacìón de la Actividad del Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias entre 1988 y 1995, Guía para la evaluation de proyectos de investigaciôn en ciencias de la salud, Medicina Clinica, 108 (1997) 460-471.
9. Committee on rating grant applications. National Institutes of Health, Report of the committee an rating grant applications, World Wide Web http://www.nih.gov/grants/peer/rga.htm, 1996,1-32.
10. J. R. RKOY, M. F. GUASCH, L. E. CLAVERlA, Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria (1988-1995). Una aproximacion al analisis de un Programa I+D, Institute National de la Salud, Madrid, 1996.
11. J. R. RICOY, Lafmanciación de ta investigation médica, Medicina Clinton, 100 (1993) Suppl. 1, 6-8.
12. P. MCCULLAOH, J. A. MELDER, Generalized linear models, Chapman and Hall, London, 1989.
13. T. J. HASTE, R. J. TIBSHIRANI, Generalized additive models, Chapman and Hall, London, 1990.
14. SAS INSTITUTE INC, SAS language: reference, version 6, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, 1990.
15. STATISTICAL SCIENCE INC, S-PLUS reference manual, version 3.2, MathSoft Inc, Seattle, 1993.
16. R. SMITH, Promoting research into peer review [editorial] (see comments), British Medical Journal, 309 (1994) 143-144.
17. C. A. OLSSON, W. A. KENNEDY, Urology peer review at the National Institutes of Health, Journal of Urology, 154 (1995) 1866-1869.
18. H. J. SUTHERLAND, E. M. MESLIN, R. DA CUNHA, J. E. TILL, Judging clinical research questions: what criteria are used?, Social Science and Medicine, 37 (1993) 1427-1430.
19. K. J. VENER, E. J. FEUER, L. GOREUC, A statistical model validating triage for the peer review process: keeping the competitive applications in the review pipeline, FASEB Journal, 1 (1993) 1312-1319.
20. F. J. MEUMAN, R. A. DE MELKER, The extent of inter- and intrareviewer agreement on the classification and assessment of designs of single-practice research, Family Practice, 12 (1995) 93-97.
21. R. K. MERTON, The Matthew effect in science, Science, 159 (1968) 36-63.
22. R. K. MERTON, The Matthew effect in science, II. Cumulative advantages and the symbolism of intellectual property, Isis, 79 (1988) 606-623.
23. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, PHS grants policy statement, US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Washington, 1987.
24. D. F. HORROBIN, Referees and research administrators: barriers to scientific research?, British Medical Journal, 2 (1974) 216-218
25. D. F. HORRQBIN, Peer review of grant applications: a harbinger of mediocrity in clinical research, Lancet, 348 (1996) 1293-1295.
26. J. P. KASSIRER, E. W. CAMPION, Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable, The Journal of the American Medical Association, 272 (1994) 96-97.
27. A. ABBOTT, Funding cuts put pressure on peer review, Nature, 383 (1996) 567.