 A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: Different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applicationsLutz Bornmann (), Loet Leydesdorff and Peter Van den Besselaar Journal of Informetrics, 2010, vol. 4, issue 3, 211-220 Abstract: Combining different data sets with information on grant and fellowship applications submitted to two renowned funding agencies, we are able to compare their funding decisions (award and rejection) with scientometric performance indicators across two fields of science (life sciences and social sciences). The data sets involve 671 applications in social sciences and 668 applications in life sciences. In both fields, awarded applicants perform on average better than all rejected applicants. If only the most preeminent rejected applicants are considered in both fields, they score better than the awardees on citation impact. With regard to productivity we find differences between the fields. While the awardees in life sciences outperform on average the most preeminent rejected applicants, the situation is reversed in social sciences. Keywords: Grant allocation; Peer review; Bibliometric quality indicators; Convergent validity and predictive validity; Error; Citation rate; h-Index (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:infome:v:4:y:2010:i:3:p:211-220 DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2009.10.004 Access Statistics for this article Journal of Informetrics is currently edited by Leo Egghe More articles in Journal of Informetrics from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.