Criteria used by a peer review committee for selection of research fellows a boolean probit analysis

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 296-303

  Bornmann, Lutz ^a,c   Daniel, Hans Dieter ^b  

^a SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^c ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 29844443776     PISSN: 0965075X     EISSN: 14682389     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2005.00326.x     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Abrams, P.A. (1991) The predictive ability of peer review of grant proposals - the case of ecology and the United States National Science Foundation. Social Studies of Science, 21(1), 111-132.
2. Agresti, A. (2002) Categorical data analysis. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
3. Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds, (n.d.) PhD Scholarships. Requirements. Retrieved April 26, 2005, from http://www.bifonds.de/scholar/inhaltr.htm
4. Bornmann, L. and Daniel, H.-D. (2004) Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of committee peer review. Evaluation of the selection of post-graduate fellowship holders by the Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds. B.I.F. Futura, 19, 7-19.
5. Bornmann, L. and Daniel, H.-D. (2005) Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Analysis of reliability, fairness and predictive validity of board of trustees' decisions. Scientometrics, 63(2), 297-320.
6. Braumoeller, B.F. (2003) Causal complexity and the study of politics. Political Analysis, 11(3), 209-233.
7. Braumoeller, B.F. (2004) Boolean logit and probit in Stata. The Stata Journal, 4(4), 436-441.
8. Braumoeller, B.F. and Kirpichevsky, Y. (2005) When more is less: Integrating qualitative information and boolean statistics. Political Analysis, 13(3), mpi018.
9. Chubin, D. and Hackett, E. (1990) Peerless science: Peer review and U.S. science policy. Albany, NY, USA: State University of New York Press.
10. Cicchetti, D.V. (1991) The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(1), 119-134.
11. 2 tests. Biometrics, 10(4), 417-451.
12. Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Edn.). Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
13. Cole, S. (1992) Making science. Between nature and society. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
14. Conroy, R.M. (2002) Choosing an appropriate real-life measure of effect size: The case of a continuous predictor and a binary outcome. The Stata Journal 2(3), 290-295.
15. Cramér, H. (1980) Mathematical methods of statistics. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.
16. Cytel Software Corporation. (2004a) StatXact: version 6. Cambridge, MA, USA: Cytel Software Corporation.
17. Cytel Software Corporation. (2004b) StatXact: version 6 with Cytel studio. Statistical software for exact nonparametric inference. User manual volume 1. Cambridge, MA, USA: Cytel Software Corporation.
18. Demicheli, V. and Pietrantonj, C. (2004) Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications (Cochrane Methodology Review). In The Cochrane Library, Issue 1. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
19. Fröhlich, H. (2001) It all depends on the individuals. Research promotion - a balanced system of control. B.I.F. Futura, 16, 69-77.
20. Garfield, E. (1987) Refereeing and peer review. Part 3. How the peer review of research grant proposals works and what scientists say about It. Current Contents, (4), 3-8.
21. Geisler, E. (2000) The metrics of science and technology. Westport, CT, USA: Quorum Books.
22. Gillett, R. (1989) Research performance indicators based on peer review: A critical analysis. Higher Education Quarterly, 43(1), 20-38.
23. Gordon, S.C. and Smith, A. (2004) Quantitative leverage through qualitative knowledge: Augmenting the statistical analysis of complex causes. Political Analysis, 12(3), 233-255.
24. Hartmann, I. and Neidhardt, F. (1990) Peer review at the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Scientometrics, 19(5-6), 419-425.
25. Hemlin, S. (1996) Research on research evaluations. Social Epistemology, 10(2), 209-250.
26. King, G. (1989) Unifying political methodology: The likelihood theory of statistical inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Kline, R.B. (2004) Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. Washington, DC, USA: American Psychological Association.
28. Mahoney, J. and Goertz, G. (2004) The possibility principle: Choosing negative cases in comparative research. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 653-669.
29. Meadows, A.J. (1998) Communicating research. London, UK: Academic Press.
30. Norman, K.L. (1986) Importance of factors in the review of grant proposals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1), 156-162.
31. R Development Core Team. (2005) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
32. Sekhon, J. and Mebane, W.R. (1998) Genetic optimization using derivatives: Theory and application to nonlinear models. Political Analysis, 7, 189-213.
33. StataCorp. (2005) Stata statistical software: release 9. College Station, TX, USA: StataCorp LP.
34. United States General Accounting Office. (1999) Peer review practices at federal science agencies vary. Washington, DC, USA: United States General Accounting Office.
35. Weller, A.C. (2002) Editorial peer review: its strengths and weaknesses. Medford, New Jersey, USA: Information Today, Inc.
36. Wessely, S. (1998) Peer review of grant applications: What do we know? Lancet, 352(9124), 301-305.
37. Wiener, S., Urivetsky, M., Bregman, D., Cohen, J., Eich, R., Gootman, N., Gulotta, S., Taylor, B., Tuttle, R., Webb, W. and Wright, J. (1977) Peer review: Inter-reviewer agreement during evaluation of reserach grant evaluations. Clinical Research, 25, 306-311.
38. Wood, F.Q. and Wessely, S. (2003) Peer review of grant applications: A systematic review. In F. Godlee and T. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer review in health sciences (2nd Edn., pp. 14-44). London, UK: BMJ Books.
39. Ziman, J. (2000) Real science. What it is, and what it means. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.