Peer review, program officers and science funding

PLoS ONE

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2011, Pages

  Roebber, Paul J ^a   Schultz, David M ^b,c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^d FINNISH METEOROLOGICAL INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FUNDING; PEER REVIEW; POLICY; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; PROFESSIONAL DELEGATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT;

PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC;

EID: 79954579969     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018680     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. National Science Board (2009) National Science Board Report 10-27: 63.
2. Van Noorden R, Brumfel G, (2010) Fixing a grant system in crisis. Nature 464: 474-475.
3. Tucker AW, (1980) On jargon: The prisoner's dilemma. UMAP Journal 1: 101.
4. Roulston MS, (2006) The scientist's dilemma. Bull Amer Meteor Soc 87: 571-572.
5. Carlson TN, (2006) Deficiencies in the present funding process in meteorology. Bull Amer Meteor Soc 87: 567-570.
6. Cole S, Cole JR, Simon GA, (1981) Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 214: 881-885.
7. Chubin DE, Hackett EJ, (1990) Peerless science: Peer review and U.S. science policy. Albany State University of New York Press.
8. Arkes HR, (2003) The nonuse of psychological research at two federal agencies. Psychological Science 14: 1-6.
9. Thurner S,2010) Peer review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average. arXiv 1008.4324.
10. McCullough J, (1994) The role and influence of the US National Science Foundation's program officers in reviewing and awarding grants. Higher Education 28: 85-94.
11. van den Besselaar P, Leydesdorff L, (2007) Past performance as predictor of successful grant pplications. Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut SciSA rapport 0704: 52.
12. Libby E, Glass L, The calculus of committee composition. PLoS ONE 5: e12642.
13. Available from:www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/apprev/Pages/rua.aspx.
14. Holbrook JB, (2005) Assessing the science-society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation's second merit review criterion. Technology in Society 27: 437-451.
15. Bornmann L, Leydesdorff L, van den Besselaar P, (2010) A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: Different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications. J. Informetrics 4: 211-220.