Focal randomisation: An optimal mechanism for the evaluation of R&D projects

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 34, Issue 10, 2007, Pages 691-698

  Brezis, Elise S ^a  

^a BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT; ECONOMIC GROWTH; FINANCE; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 41449084069     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/030234207X265394     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Fahrenkrog, G, W Polt, J Rojo, A Tubke and K Zinocker eds. 2002. RTD Evaluation Toolbox -Assessing the Socio-economic Impact of RTD Policies. Strata Project HPV1 CT 1999-00005. Seville, Spain: IPTS Technical Report Series.
2. Godlee, F, C R Gale and C N Martyn 1998. The effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomised controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 237-242.
3. Horrobin, D F 1990. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of American Medical Association, 263(10), 1438-1441
4. Jaffe A 2002. Building programme: evaluation into the design of public research-support programmes. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 18(1), 22-34.
5. Mahoney, M 1977. Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(2), 161-175.
6. Martin, B 1997. Peer review as scholarly conformity. In Suppression Stories, B. Martin, pp. 69-83. Wollongong: Fund for Intellectual Dissent.
7. Martyn, C 1999. Peer review: some quotations from Socrates. In Peer Review in Health Sciences, eds. F Godlee and T Jefferson. London: BMJ Publishing group.
8. NAS, National Academy of Sciences 1999. Research and the government performance and results acts. Committee on science engineering and public policy evaluating federal research programs.
9. Peters, D and S Ceci 1982. Peer review practices of psychology journals: the fate of submitted articles, submitted again. Behavioral Brain Science, 5(2), 187-195.
10. Smith, R 1994. Promoting research into peer review. British Medical Journal, 309(6948), 143-144.
11. Wenneras, C and A Wold 1997. Nepotism and sexism in peer review. Nature, 387(5), 341-343.