IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v47y2000i1d10.1023_a1005609624130.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Peer Review Predict the Performance of Research Projects in Health Sciences?

Author

Listed:
  • L. Erik Clavería

    (General Hospital)

  • Eliseo Guallar

    (National School of Public Health Instituto de Salud Carlos III)

  • Jordi Camí

    (Universitat Pompeu Fabra)

  • José Conde

    (Instituto de Salud Carlos III)

  • Roberto Pastor

    (National School of Public Health Instituto de Salud Carlos III)

  • José R. Ricoy

    (Neuropathology Unit)

  • Eduardo Rodríguez-Farré

    (CSIC)

  • Fernando Ruiz-Palomo

    (Hospital Ramón y Cajal)

  • Emilio Muñoz

    (Institute for Advanced Sociologic Research)

Abstract

Peer review is a basic component of the scientific process, but its performance has seldom been evaluated systematically. To determine whether pre-approval characteristics of research projects predicted the performance of projects, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of all 2744 single-centre research projects financed by the Spanish Health Research Fund since 1988 and completed before 1996. Peer review scores of grant applications were significant predictors of performance of funded projects, and the likelihood of production was also higher for projects with a basic research component, longer duration, higher budget or a financed research fellow. Funding agencies should monitor their selection process and assess the performance of funded projects to design future strategies in supporting health sciences research.

Suggested Citation

  • L. Erik Clavería & Eliseo Guallar & Jordi Camí & José Conde & Roberto Pastor & José R. Ricoy & Eduardo Rodríguez-Farré & Fernando Ruiz-Palomo & Emilio Muñoz, 2000. "Does Peer Review Predict the Performance of Research Projects in Health Sciences?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(1), pages 11-23, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:47:y:2000:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1005609624130
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1005609624130
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1005609624130
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1005609624130?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sutherland, H. J. & Meslin, E. M. & da Cunha, R. & Till, J. E., 1993. "Judging clinical research questions: What criteria are used?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 1427-1430, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Alexandre Rodrigues Oliveira & Carlos Fernando Mello, 2016. "Importance and susceptibility of scientific productivity indicators: two sides of the same coin," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 697-722, November.
    2. Stephen A Gallo & Afton S Carpenter & David Irwin & Caitlin D McPartland & Joseph Travis & Sofie Reynders & Lisa A Thompson & Scott R Glisson, 2014. "The Validation of Peer Review through Research Impact Measures and the Implications for Funding Strategies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-9, September.
    3. Qianjin Zong & Yafen Xie & Rongchan Tuo & Jingshi Huang & Yang Yang, 2019. "The impact of video abstract on citation counts: evidence from a retrospective cohort study of New Journal of Physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1715-1727, June.
    4. Martin Reinhart, 2009. "Peer review of grant applications in biology and medicine. Reliability, fairness, and validity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 789-809, December.
    5. Hui Fang, 2011. "Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(2), pages 293-301, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hendy Abdoul & Christophe Perrey & Philippe Amiel & Florence Tubach & Serge Gottot & Isabelle Durand-Zaleski & Corinne Alberti, 2012. "Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Mårtensson, Pär & Fors, Uno & Wallin, Sven-Bertil & Zander, Udo & Nilsson, Gunnar H, 2016. "Evaluating research: A multidisciplinary approach to assessing research practice and quality," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 593-603.

    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:spr:scient:v:47:y:2000:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1005609624130. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.