Informed peer review and uninformed bibliometrics?

Research Evaluation

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 31-46

  Neufeld, Jörg ^a   von Ins, Markus ^a  

^a Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance (IFQ)   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955389782     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/095820211X12941371876382     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Böhmer, Susan and Markus von Ins 2009. Different - not just by label: research-oriented academic careers in Germany. Research Evaluation, 18(3), September, 177-184.
2. Bornmann, Lutz and Hans-Dieter Daniel 2006. Selecting scientific excellence through committee peer review: a citation analysis of publications previously published to approval or rejection of post-doctoral research fellowship applicants. Scientometrics, 68(3), 427-440.
3. Bornmann, Lutz, Loet Leydesdorff and Peter van den Besselaar 2010. A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), July, 211-220.
4. Bornmann, Lutz, Gerlind Wallon and Anna Ledin 2008. Does the committee peer review select the best applicants for funding? An investigation of the selection process for two European molecular biology organization programmes. PLoS One, 3(10), e3480.
5. Cicchetti, Domenic V 1991. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: a cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(1), 119-135.
6. Daniel, Hans-Dieter, Sandra Mittag and Lutz Bornmann 2007. The potential and problems of peer evaluation in higher education and research. In Quality Assessment for Higher Education in Europe, ed. A Cavalli, pp. 71-82. London, UK: Portland Press.
7. DFG, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 2004. Empfehlungen zu einer »Leistungsorientierten Mittelvergabe« (LOM) an den Medizinischen Fakultäten. Stellungnahme der Senatskommission für Klinische Forschung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft. , last accessed 21 February 2011.
8. Haslam, Nick and Simon Laham 2009. Early-career scientific achievement and patterns of authorship: the mixed blessings of publication leadership and collaboration. Research Evaluation, 18(5), December, 405-410.
9. Hirsch, Jorge E 2005. An index to quantify an individual's scientific output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102(46), 16569-16572.
10. Hornbostel, Stefan and Meike Olbrecht 2007. Peer Review in der DFG: die Fachkollegiaten. iFQ-Working Paper No.2. Bonn. , last accessed 21 February 2011.
11. Hornbostel, Stefan, Susan Böhmer, Bernd Klingsporn, Jörg Neufeld and Markus von Ins 2009. Funding of young scientist and scientific excellence. Scientometrics, 79(1), April, 171-190.
12. Kürschners Deutscher Gelehrten-Kalender 2009. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Publishing.
13. Marsh, Herbert W, Upali W Jayasinghe and Nigel W Bond 2008. Improving the peer-review process for grant applications. reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist, April, 160-168.
14. 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.
15. Nicolaison, Jeppe and Tove Faber Frandsen 2008. The reference return ratio. Journal of Informetrics, 2(2), April, 128-135.
16. Van den Besselaar, Peter and Loet Leydesdorff 2009. Past performance, peer review and project selection: a case study in the social and behavioral sciences. Research Evaluation, 18(4), October, 273-288.