How do NIHR peer review panels use bibliometric information to support their decisions?

Scientometrics

Volumn 112, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 1813-1835

  Gunashekar, Salil ^a   Wooding, Steven ^b   Guthrie, Susan ^a  

^a RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Grant funding; Peer review; Review panels

Indexed keywords

EID: 85020741643     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2417-8     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Aksnes, D. W., & Taxt, R. E. (2004). Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: A comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research Evaluation, 13(1), 33–41.
2. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2007). Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 226–238. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2007.03.001.
3. BRC. (2016). Biomedical Research Centres. http://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/documents/4.02-Biomedical-Research-Centres.pdf. Accessed 24 April 2017.
4. BRC. (2017). Biomedical Research Centres. Webpage. http://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/how-we-are-managed/our-structure/infrastructure/biomedical-research-centres.htm. Accessed 24 April 2017.
5. BRU. (2016). Biomedical Research Units. Online document. http://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/documents/4.03-Biomedical-Research-Units.pdf. Accessed 24 April 2017.
6. CLAHRCs. (2013). Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care: Invitation to Submit Application. http://api.ning.com/files/ZHWvHcHnRn0JM4GD11pFHZPpfJuQUTrCLob6nkQSzVFSXMBvPku8UIhguKCizftuTzM77fykji2HfA-jSwdRJVmZf7EF0MeZ/NIHRCLAHRCsInvitationtoSubmitApplication2013.pdf. Accessed 24 April 2017.
7. CLAHRCs. (2017). Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs). http://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/how-we-are-managed/our-structure/infrastructure/collaborations-for-leadership-in-applied-health-research-and-care.htm. Accessed 24 April 2017.
8. Cochrane Library. (2017). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. http://www.cochranelibrary.com/cochrane-database-of-systematic-reviews/. Accessed 24 April 2017.
9. ERA. (2015). Excellence in Research for Australia. http://www.arc.gov.au/excellence-research-australia. Accessed 24 April 2017.
10. HEFCE. (2015a). Independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/rsrch/metrics/. Accessed 24 April 2017.
11. HEFCE. (2015b). The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/Year/2015/metrictide/Title,104463,en.html. Accessed 24 April 2017.
12. Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504, 211–213. doi:10.1038/504211a.
13. Lewison, G., Cottrell, R., & Dixon, D. (1999). Bibliometric indicators to assist the peer review process in grant decisions. Research Evaluation, 8(1), 47–52.
14. Nederhof, A. J., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1993). A bibliometric analysis of six economics research groups: A comparison with peer review. Research Policy, 22(4), 353–368.
15. REF. (2012). Panel criteria and working methods. http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/panelcriteriaandworkingmethods/01_12.pdf. Accessed 24 April 2017.
16. REF. (2014a). Research Excellence Framework. http://www.ref.ac.uk/. Accessed 24 April 2017.
17. REF. (2014b). REF Assessment criteria and level definitions. http://www.ref.ac.uk/panels/assessmentcriteriaandleveldefinitions/. Accessed 24 April 2017.
18. SI. (2017). Senior Investigators. http://www.nihr.ac.uk/our-faculty/senior-investigators/. Accessed 24 April 2017.
19. Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore E., Campbell P., Curry S., Hill S. et al. (2015). The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363
20. Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A., & Franssen, T. (2015). The metric tide: Literature review (supplementary report I to the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management). HEFCE. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.5066.3520