IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v16y2007i2p79-91.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining the value added by committee discussion in the review of applications for research awards

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Obrecht
  • Karl Tibelius
  • Guy D'Aloisio

Abstract

We examined a process for evaluating research fellowship proposals in which each was assigned to two members of a review committee for in-depth assessment. Before the committee meeting the reviewers scored the proposal against weighted criteria using benchmarked scales and a detailed rating guide. At the meeting they presented their reviews and then received questions and comments from colleagues. Subsequently each committee member assigned a score reflecting their overall appreciation of the proposal. We observed committees at work, analysed pre-meeting and post-discussion scores and considered feedback from reviewers. Our results suggest that committee discussion and rating of proposals offered no improvement to fairness and effectiveness over and above that attainable from the pre-meeting evaluations. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Obrecht & Karl Tibelius & Guy D'Aloisio, 2007. "Examining the value added by committee discussion in the review of applications for research awards," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 79-91, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:16:y:2007:i:2:p:79-91
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820207X223785
    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. David G Pina & Darko Hren & Ana Marušić, 2015. "Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Stephen A Gallo & Afton S Carpenter & Scott R Glisson, 2013. "Teleconference versus Face-to-Face Scientific Peer Review of Grant Application: Effects on Review Outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-9, August.
    3. Feliciani, Thomas & Morreau, Michael & Luo, Junwen & Lucas, Pablo & Shankar, Kalpana, 2022. "Designing grant-review panels for better funding decisions: Lessons from an empirically calibrated simulation model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    4. Benda, Wim G.G. & Engels, Tim C.E., 2011. "The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 166-182.
    5. 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.
    6. Miriam L E Steiner Davis & Tiffani R Conner & Kate Miller-Bains & Leslie Shapard, 2020. "What makes an effective grants peer reviewer? An exploratory study of the necessary skills," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-22, May.
    7. Benda, Wim G.G. & Engels, Tim C.E., 2011. "The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 166-182, January.
    8. John Jerrim, 2019. "Peer-review of grant proposals. An analysis of Economic and Social Research Council grant applications," DoQSS Working Papers 19-05, Quantitative Social Science - UCL Social Research Institute, University College London.

    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:16:y:2007:i:2:p:79-91. 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.