IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v15y2006i3p209-219.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Potential sources of bias in research fellowship assessments: effects of university prestige and field of study

Author

Listed:
  • Lutz Bornmann
  • Hans-Dieter Daniel

Abstract

In this study we analysed the committee peer review process used by an international foundation for the promotion of basic research in biomedicine (Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds) as to whether the scientific field of study within which the research project is proposed and the institutional prestige of the grant applicant's university influenced the decision to award doctoral and post-doctoral fellowships. The results of the comprehensive empirical analyses show statistically significant evidence of a bias in the review process towards certain fields of study, but no evidence of a bias towards applications for fellowships from researchers affiliated with prestigious universities. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Lutz Bornmann & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2006. "Potential sources of bias in research fellowship assessments: effects of university prestige and field of study," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 209-219, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:15:y:2006:i:3:p:209-219
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154406781775850
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2008. "Latent Markov modeling applied to grant peer review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 217-228.
    2. Dekel Omer & Schurr Amos, 2014. "Cognitive Biases in Government Procurement – An Experimental Study," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 1-32, July.
    3. Richard R Snell, 2015. "Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number of Peer Reviewers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    4. Zhentao Liang & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2023. "Bias against scientific novelty: A prepublication perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 99-114, January.
    5. Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli & Gianluca Murgia, 2020. "University–Industry collaborations and international knowledge spillovers: a joint-patent investigation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 958-983, August.
    6. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2008. "How to detect indications of potential sources of bias in peer review: A generalized latent variable modeling approach exemplified by a gender study," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 280-287.
    7. Alfredo Yegros Yegros & Carlos B. Amat, 2009. "Editorial delay of food research papers is influenced by authors’ experience but not by country of origin of the manuscripts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 367-380, November.
    8. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    9. Materia, V.C. & Pascucci, S. & Kolympiris, C., 2015. "Understanding the selection processes of public research projects in agriculture: The role of scientific merit," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 87-99.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:15:y:2006:i:3:p:209-219. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.