How do referees integrate evaluation criteria into their overall judgment? Evidence from grant peer review

Sven E. Hug ()
Additional contact information
Sven E. Hug: University of Zurich

Scientometrics, 2024, vol. 129, issue 3, No 3, 1253 pages

Abstract: Abstract Little is known whether peer reviewers use the same evaluation criteria and how they integrate the criteria into their overall judgment. This study therefore proposed two assessment styles based on theoretical perspectives and normative positions. According to the case-by-case style, referees use many and different criteria, weight criteria on a case-by-case basis, and integrate criteria in a complex, non-mechanical way into their overall judgment. According to the uniform style, referees use a small fraction of the available criteria, apply the same criteria, weight the criteria in the same way, and integrate the criteria based on simple rules (i.e., fast-and-frugal heuristics). These two styles were examined using a unique dataset from a career funding scheme that contained a comparatively large number of evaluation criteria. A heuristic (fast-and-frugal trees) and a complex procedure (logistic regression) were employed to describe how referees integrate the criteria into their overall judgment. The logistic regression predicted the referees’ overall assessment with high accuracy and slightly more accurately than the fast-and-frugal trees. Overall, the results of this study support the uniform style but also indicate that the uniform style needs to be revised as follows: referees use many criteria and integrate the criteria using complex rules. However, and most importantly, the revised style could describe most—but not all—of the referees’ judgments. Future studies should therefore examine how referees’ judgments can be characterized in those cases where the uniform style failed. Moreover, the evaluation process of referees should be studied in more empirical and theoretical detail.

Keywords: Academic peer review; Peer review theory; Fast and frugal heuristics; Commensuration bias; Evaluation criteria; Grant funding (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-023-04915-y 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:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04915-y

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11192

DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04915-y

Access Statistics for this article

Scientometrics is currently edited by Wolfgang Glänzel

More articles in Scientometrics from Springer, Akadémiai Kiadó
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().