Risk evaluation in peer review of grant applications

Stephen Gallo (), Lisa Thompson, Karen Schmaling and Scott Glisson
Additional contact information
Stephen Gallo: American Institute of Biological Sciences, Scientific Peer Advisory and Review Services
Lisa Thompson: American Institute of Biological Sciences, Scientific Peer Advisory and Review Services
Karen Schmaling: Washington State University
Scott Glisson: American Institute of Biological Sciences, Scientific Peer Advisory and Review Services

Environment Systems and Decisions, 2018, vol. 38, issue 2, 216-229

Abstract: Abstract The process of peer review is used to identify the most scientifically meritorious research projects for funding. Impact and innovation are among the criteria used to determine overall merit. A criticism of peer review has been the perception that reviewers are biased against innovation, such as one study that found reviewers to systematically assign poorer scores to highly novel work. Moreover, reviewers’ definitions for excellent research and paradigm-shifting research are different; innovative research may not always be considered excellent. Therefore, it is clear more needs to be done to understand the decision-making processes of reviewers in evaluating risk and innovation in research. In an effort to address this gap, the American Institute of Biological Sciences developed a comprehensive peer review survey that examined, in part, the differences in applicant and reviewer perceptions of review outcomes. The survey was disseminated to 13,091 reviewers and applicants, of whom 9.4% responded. Only 24% of respondent applicants indicated that innovation was addressed in their review feedback, while 81% of respondent reviewers indicated they factored innovation into selecting the best science and 73% viewed innovation as an essential component of scientific excellence. Similarly, while only 27% of respondent applicants reported receiving comments on the riskiness of their grant applications, 58% of respondent reviewers indicated that the risks associated with innovative research impacted the scores they assigned to the grant applications. These results indicate a potential source of bias in how innovation and risk are evaluated in grant applications.

Keywords: Peer review; Innovation; Research funding; Grant applications; Novelty; Survey (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-018-9677-6 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:38:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10669-018-9677-6

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.springer.com/journal/10669

DOI: 10.1007/s10669-018-9677-6

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Environment Systems and Decisions from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().