IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v26y2017i3p190-198..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation for the allocation of university research project funding: Can rules improve the peer review?

Author

Listed:
  • Emanuela Reale
  • Antonio Zinilli

Abstract

Evaluation for the allocation of project-funding schemes devoted to sustain academic research often undergoes changes of the rules for the ex-ante selection, which are supposed to improve the capability of peer review to select the best proposals. How modifications of the rules realize a more accountable evaluation result? Do the changes suggest an improved alignment with the program’s intended objectives? The article addresses these questions investigating Research Project of National Interest, an Italian collaborative project-funding scheme for academic curiosity-driven research through a case study design that provides a description of how the changes of the ex-ante evaluation process were implemented in practice. The results show that when government tries to steer the peer-review process by imposing an increasing number of rules to structure the debate among peers and make it more accountable, the peer-review practices remain largely impervious to the change.

Suggested Citation

  • Emanuela Reale & Antonio Zinilli, 2017. "Evaluation for the allocation of university research project funding: Can rules improve the peer review?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 190-198.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:26:y:2017:i:3:p:190-198.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvx019
    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. Arnott, James C., 2021. "Pens and purse strings: Exploring the opportunities and limits to funding actionable sustainability science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    2. Marco Seeber, 2020. "How do journals of different rank instruct peer reviewers? Reviewer guidelines in the field of management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1387-1405, March.
    3. Pan, Wenhui & Zhao, Pengwei & Qin, Chunxiu & Ding, Xianfeng, 2020. "How do new members affect the relationship between principal investigator’s network position and academic output of granted funds?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    4. Nyboer, Elizabeth A & Nguyen, Vivian & Young, Nathan & Rytwinski, Trina & Taylor, Jessica J & Lane, John Francis & Bennett, Joseph R & Harron, Nathan & Aitkin, Susan M & Auld, Graeme, 2021. "Supporting actionable science for environmental policy: Advice for funding agencies from decision makers," EcoEvoRxiv 4ye2u, Center for Open Science.
    5. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Emanuela Reale, 2019. "Peer review versus bibliometrics: Which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 537-554, October.

    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:26:y:2017:i:3:p:190-198.. 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.