Related Content
Search Google Scholar for:
|
|
Science 20 November 1981:
Vol. 214. no. 4523, pp. 881 - 886
DOI: 10.1126/science.7302566
|
|
Articles
Science, Vol 214, Issue 4523, 881-886
Copyright © 1981 by American Association for the Advancement of Science
Chance and consensus in peer review
S Cole,
Cole JR,
and
GA Simon
An experiment in which 150 proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation were evaluated independently by a new set of reviewers indicates that getting a research grant depends to a significant extent on chance. The degree of disagreement within the population of eligible reviewers is such that whether or not a proposal is funded depends in a large proportion of cases upon which reviewers happen to be selected for it. No evidence of systematic bias in the selection of NSF reviewers was found.
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES:
- Fairness as Appropriateness: Negotiating Epistemological Differences in Peer Review.
- G. Mallard, M. Lamont, and J. Guetzkow (2009)
Science Technology Human Values
34, 573-606
| Abstract »
| PDF »
- Is Peer Review Censorship?.
- A. Casadevall and F. C. Fang (2009)
Infect. Immun.
77, 1273-1274
| Full Text »
| PDF »
- Credibility and Relevance in Environmental Policy: Measuring Strategies and Performance among Science Assessment Organizations.
- A. C. Keller (2009)
J. Public Adm. Res. Theory.
| Abstract »
| Full Text »
| PDF »
- New Knowledge Versus Consensus -- a Critical Note On Their Relationship Based On the Debate Concerning the Use of Barrel-Vaults in Macedonian Tombs.
- K. Chilidis (2008)
European Journal of Archaeology
11, 75-103
| Abstract »
| PDF »
- Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?.
- P. M. Rothwell and C. N. Martyn (2000)
Brain
123, 1964-1969
| Abstract »
| Full Text »
| PDF »
- Peer Review in Prague.
- D. Rennie (1998)
JAMA
280, 214-215
| Full Text »
| PDF »
- Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research.
- P. O Seglen (1997)
BMJ
314, 497
| Full Text »
- Improving Participation and Interrater Agreement in Scoring Ambulatory Pediatric Association Abstracts: How Well Have We Succeeded?.
- K. J. Kemper, P. L. McCarthy, and D. V. Cicchetti (1996)
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
150, 380-383
| Abstract »
| PDF »
- Grants Peer Review in Theory and Practice.
- D. E. Chubin (1994)
Eval Rev
18, 20-30
| Abstract »
| PDF »
- New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System.
- G.D.L. Travis and H.M. Collins (1991)
Science Technology Human Values
16, 322-341
| Abstract »
| PDF »
- Problems Identified by Secondary Review of Accepted Manuscripts.
- J. M. Garfunkel, M. H. Ulshen, H. J. Hamrick, and E. E. Lawson (1990)
JAMA
263, 1369-1371
| Abstract »
| PDF »
- Assessing Peer Review in the Quest for Improved Medical Services.
- N. Hershey and L. C. Bontempo (1989)
American Journal of Medical Quality
4, 94-100
| Abstract »
| PDF »
- A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation.
- J. King (1987)
Journal of Information Science
13, 261-276
| Abstract »
| PDF »
- Multiskill Research.
- A. L. Porter and F. A. Rossini (1986)
Science Communication
7, 219-246
| Abstract »
- The Social Construction of Two Biologists' Proposals.
- G. MYERS (1985)
Written Communication
2, 219-245
| Abstract »
- New NIE Peer Review Procedures.
- M. J. JUSTIZ and H. N. MOORMAN (1985)
Educational Researcher
14, 5-11
| Abstract »
| PDF »
- Correlates of Departmental Quality in Regional Colleges and Universities.
- C. F. Conrad and R. T. Blackburn (1985)
American Educational Research Journal
22, 279-295
| Abstract »
| PDF »
- From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis.
- M. Callon, J.-P. Courtial, W. A. Turner, and S. Bauin (1983)
Social Science Information
22, 191-235
- NSF Peer Review (Continued).
- L. G. HUMPHREYS (1982)
Science
215, 344
| PDF »
|
|
