Peer review of grant applications: A simple method to identify proposals with discordant reviews

PLoS ONE

Volumn 6, Issue 11, 2011, Pages

  Giraudeau, Bruno ^a,b,c   Leyrat, Clémence ^a   Le Gouge, Amélie ^a,c   Léger, Julie ^a,c   Caille, Agnès ^a,b,c  

^a INSERM   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE TOURS   (France)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF TOURS   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; FUNDING; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; RATING SCALE; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; ARTICLE; CONFLICT; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT;

DISSENT AND DISPUTES; FINANCING, ORGANIZED; PEER REVIEW; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 81055126631     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027557     Document Type: Review

References (10)

1. Demicheli V, Di Pietrantonj C, (2007) Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev pp. MR000003.
2. Wessely S, (1998) Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? Lancet 352: 301-305.
3. Wiener SL, Urivetzky M, Bregman D, Cohen J, Eich R, et al. (1977) Peer review: inter-reviewer agreement during evaluation of research grant applications. Clin Res 25: 306-311.
4. Hartmann I, Neidhardt F, (1990) Peer review at the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Seintometrics 19: 419-425.
5. Green JG, Calhoun F, Nierzwicki L, Brackett J, Meier P, (1989) Rating intervals: an experiment in peer review. FASEB J 3: 1987-1992.
6. Shoukri M, (2004) Measures of interobserver agreement Boca Raton Chapman & Hall/CRC.
7. Giraudeau B, (1996) Negative values of the intraclass correlation coefficient are not theoretically possible. J Clin Epidemiol 49: 1205-1206.
8. Donner A, (1986) A review of inference procedures for the intraclass correlation coefficient in the one-way random effects model. Int Stat Rev 54: 67-82.
9. Giraudeau B, Mallet A, Chastang C, (1996) Case influence on the intraclass correlation coefficient estimate. Biometrics 52: 1492-1497.
10. Hankard R, Giraudeau B, Dubus JC, Tounian P, Sarles J, et al. (In press) Comment sont évalués les résumés soumis à la Société Française de Pédiatrie (SFP)? Arch Pediatr.