Past performance, peer review and project selection: A case study in the social and behavioral sciences

Research Evaluation

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 273-288

  van den Besselaar, Peter ^a,b   Leydesdorff, Loet ^c  

^a Rathenau Institute KNAW   (Netherlands)

^b VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77449158004     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/095820209X475360     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Adler, Robert, John Ewing and Peter Taylor 2008. Citation Statistics. International Mathematical Union.
2. Aksnes, Dag W and Randi Elisabeth Taxt 2004. Peer review and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research Evaluation, 13 (1), April, 33-41.
3. Andersen, H 2009. Editorial: Journals under threat: a joint response from HSTM editors. Metascience, 18, 1-4.
4. Barker, Katherine 2007. The UK Research Assessment Exercise: the evolution of a national research evaluation system. Research Evaluation, 16, April, 3-12.
5. Böhmer, Susan, Stefan Hornbostel and Michael Meuser 2008. Postdocs in Deutschland: Evaluation des Emmy NoetherProgramms. iFQ-Working Paper No. 3, May; available at , last accessed 16 September 2008.
6. Bornman, Lutz and Hans-Dieter Daniel 2006a. Potential sources of bias in research fellowship assessments: effect of university prestige and field of study. Research Evaluation, 15 (3), December, 209-219.
7. Bornman, Lutz and Hans-Dieter Daniel 2006b. Selecting scientific excellence through committee peer review. Scientometrics, 68, 427-440.
8. Bornman, Lutz and Hans-Dieter Daniel 2008. Reliability, fairness, and predictive validity of the peer review process for the selection of research fellowship recipients of the Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds. In Hochschule im Wandel. Die Universität als Forschungsgegenstand. Festschrift für Ulrich Teichler, ed. Barbara M Kehm, pp. 365-376. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
9. Bornmann, Lutz, Rüdiger Mutz and Hans-Dieter Daniel 2007. Gender differences in grant peer review: a meta-analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 226-238.
10. British Academy 2007. Peer Review: the Challenges for the Humanities and the Social Sciences. London: British Academy. Butler, Linda 2007. Assessing university research, a plea for a balanced approach. Science and Public Policy, 34 (8), October, 565-574.
11. Butler, Linda 2008. Using a balanced approach to bibliometrics: quantitative performance measures in the Australian Research Quality Framework. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 83-92.
12. Charlton, Bruce and Peter Andras 2007. Evaluating universities using simple scientometreic research-output metrics. Science and Public Policy, 34 (8), October, 555-563.
13. Donovan, Clair 2007. Introduction: Future pathways for science policy and research assessment: metric vs peer review, quality vs impact. Science and Public Policy, 34 (8), October, 538-542.
14. ESF, European Science Foundation 2007. Peer review its present and future state. Conference report. Strasbourg: ESF. March.
15. Frohlich, Gerhard 2003. Anonyme Kritik: Peer review auf dem Prüfstand der Wissenschaftsforschung. Medizin-BibliothekInformation 3, 33-39.
16. Hirschauer, Stefan 2004. Peer Review Verfahren auf dem Prüfstand zum Soziologiedefizit der Wissenschaftsevaluation. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 33, 62-83.
17. Irvine, J and B R Martin 1984. Foresight in Science: Picking the Winners. London: Pinter.
18. Langfeldt, Liv 2001. Decision making constraints and processes of grant peer review, and their effect on review outcome. Social Studies of Science, 31, 820-841.
19. Langfeldt, Liv 2004. Expert panels evaluating research: decision-making and sources of bias. Research Evaluation, 13(1), April, 51-62.
20. Laudel, Grit, and Gloria Origgi 2006. Special issue on the assessment of interdisciplinary research. Research Evaluation, 15(1), April, 2-80.
21. Lawrence, Peter A 2007. The mismeasurement of science. Current Biology, 17(15), 7 August, R583-R585.
22. Leydesdorff, Loet 2008. Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(2), 278-287.
23. Martin, B R and J Irvine 1983. Assessing basic research: some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research Policy, 12, 61-90.
24. Melin, Göran and Rickard Danell 2006. The top eight percent: development of approved and rejected applicants for a prestigious grant in Sweden. Science and Public Policy, 33(10), December, 702-712.
25. Moed, Henk F 2007. The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), October, 575-583.
26. Nederhof, A J 2006. Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: a review. Scientometrics, 66, 81-100.
27. Nightingale, Paul and Alister Scott 2007. Peer review and the relevance gap: ten suggestions for policy makers. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), October, 543-553.
28. Oppenheim, Charles 2008. Out with the old and in with the new: the RAE, bibliometrics and the new REF. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 40, 147-149.
29. Osterloh, Margrit and Bruno S Frey 2008. Creativity and conformity: alternatives to the present peer review system. Paper at the Peer Review Reviewed Workshop, 24-25 April 2008. Berlin: WSB.
30. Peters, D P and S J Ceci 1982. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(2), 187-195.
31. Rothwell, Peter M and Christopher N Martyn 2000. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Brain, 123, 1964-1969.
32. Sandstrom, Ulf and Martin Hällsten 2005. Springboard or Stumbling Block: Can Research Councils Promote Scientific Excellence without Gender Bias? Swedish Research Council. Sandstrom, Ulf and Martin Hällsten 2008. Persistent nepotism in peer review. Scientometrics, 74, 175-189.
33. SDU 2004. Universiteiten en Onderzoeksinstellingen in Nederland. Den Haag: SDU.
34. SWR-RGW 2005. Judging Research on Its Merits. Amsterdam: KNAW.
35. Van den Besselaar, Peter 2008. A Map of Media and Communication Research. Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut. (SciSA rapport 0705 in Dutch)
36. Van den Besselaar, Peter and Loet Leydesdorff 2007. Past Performance as Predictor of Successful Grant Applications, a Case Study. Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut. (SciSA rapport 0706)
37. Van Leeuwen, Thed N 2007. To Which Extent Does NWO VI Funding Support Excellent Research? Leiden University, The Netherlands: Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS).
38. Wenneras, Christine and Agnes Wold 1987. Nepotism and sexism in science. Nature, 387, 341-343.
39. Wessely, Simin 1998. Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? Lancet, 352, 25 July, 301-305.