The calculus of committee composition

PLoS ONE

Volumn 5, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1-8

  Libby, Eric ^a   Glass, Leon ^b  

^a MASSEY UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EVALUATION; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; ADVISORY COMMITTEE; ECONOMICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SPORT;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FINANCING, ORGANIZED; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; SPORTS;

EID: 77958540556     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012642     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Condorcet Md J-A-N de C (1785) Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité de voix. Paris: De L'Imprimerie Royale.
2. Dodgson C (2001) The Pamphlets of Lewis Carroll, Vol. 3. The Political Pamphlets and Letters of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson and Related Pieces. A Mathematical Approach. Reprint of 'A method of taking votes on more than two issues' by C. L. Dodgson (1876). Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Pp 46-58.
3. May R (1983) Electoral procedures: Preference and paradox. Nature 303: 16-17.
4. Arrow K (1963) Social Choice and Individual Values. New Haven: Yale University Press.
5. Saari D (2001) Decisions and Elections. New YorkNew York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Kreps D (1988) Notes on the Theory of Choice. BoulderColorado: Westview Press.
7. Alarie B, Green A, Iacobucci E (2008) Is Bigger Always Better? On Optimal Panel Size, with Evidence from the Supreme Court of Canada. Toronto: U Toronto, Legal Studies Research Series 08-15.
8. Ordeshook P (1986) Game Theory and Political Theory: An Introduction. New YorkNew York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Johnson V (2008) Statistical analysis of the national institutes of health peer review system. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105: 11076-11080.
10. National Institutes of Health (2009) NIH Peer Review Self-Study. Available: http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/index.html.
11. Miller G, Couzin J (2007) Peer review under stress. Science 316: 358-359.
12. Kaplan D, Lacetera N, Kaplan C (2008) Sample size and precision in NIH peer review. PLoS ONE 3: e2761.
13. Fang F, Casadevall A (2009) NIH Peer Review Reform-Change We Need, or Lipstick on a Pig? Infection and Immunity 77: 929.
14. Cole S, Cole JR, Simon GA (1981) Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 214: 881-6.
15. Mayo NE, Brophy J, Goldberg MS, Klein MB, Miller S, et al. (2006) Peering at peer review revealed high degree of chance associated with funding of grant applications. J Clin Epidemiol 59: 842-8.
16. Bornmann L, Daniel HD (2009) Extent of type I and type II errors in editorial decisions: a case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Journal of Informatics 3: 348-352.
17. Chubin D (1994) Grants peer review in theory and practice. Evaluation Review 18: 20-30.
18. Wessely S (1998) Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? Lancet 352: 301-5.
19. Bornmann L, Wallon G, Ledin A (2008) Does the committee peer review select the best applicant for funding? An investigation of the selection process for two European molecular biology organization programmes. PLoS ONE 3: e3480.
20. Harary F, Moser L (1966) The theory of round robin tournaments. Am Math Monthly 73: 231-246.
21. Seife C (2003) New skating system fails virtual replay. Science 299: 651.
22. International Skating Union (2008) International Skating Union Official Site. Available: http://www.isu.org.
23. Hastie R, Kameda T (2005) The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psychol Rev 112: 494-508.
24. Sorkin R, West R, Robinson D (1998) Group performance depends on the majority rule. Psychol Sci 9: 456-463.
25. Larrick R, Soll J (2006) Intuitions about combining opinions: Misappreciation of the averaging principle. Manage Sci 52: 111-127.
26. Aspinall W (2010) A route to more tractable expert advice. Nature 463: 294-295.
27. Cooke R (1991) Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science. New YorkNew York: Oxford University Press.
28. Cooke R (1997) Uncertainty modeling: Examples and issues. Safety Science 26: 49-60.
29. Clemen R, Winkler R (1999) Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk Analysis 19: 187-203.
30. Sackman H (1974) Delphi assessment: expert opinion, forecasting, and group process. R-1283-PR, United States Air Force Project Rand Report.
31. Mackay DJC (2003) Information theory, inference, and learning algorithms. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. Feld S, Grofman B (1984) The accuracy of group majority decisions in groups with added members. Public Choice 42: 273-285.
33. Karotkin D, Paroush J (2003) Optimum committee size: Quality-versus-quantity dilemma. Social Choice and Welfare 20: 429-441.
34. Kang S (2004) The Optimal Size of Committee. Journal of Economic Research 9: 217-238.
35. Moore D, Healy P (2008) The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review 115: 502-517.
36. Harvey N (1997) Confidence in judgment. Trends in Cog Sci 1: 78-82.
37. Lander E (1999) Array of hope. Nature Genetics 21: 3-4.
38. Allison D, Cui X, Page G, Sabripour M (2006) Microarray data analysis: from disarray to consolidation and consensus. Nature Reviews Genetics 7: 55-65.
39. Irizarry R, Hobbs B, Collin F, Beazer-Barclay Y, Antonellis K, et al. (2003) Exploration, normalization, and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. Biostatistics 4: 249-264.
40. Cozzens S (1997) The knowledge pool: measurement challenges in evaluating fundamental research programs. Evaluation and Program Planning 20: 77-89.