IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v6y2012i4p580-585.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selection committee membership: Service or self-service

Author

Listed:
  • van den Besselaar, Peter

Abstract

Project funding is an increasingly important mode of research funding. The rationale is that through project funding new fields and new themes can be supported more effectively. Furthermore, project funding improves competition, which is expected to select the better research projects and researchers. However, project funding has a price, as it requires researchers to invest time in reviewing proposals, and to participate in selection committees. In that perspective, selection committee membership can be seen as a service to the scholarly community.

Suggested Citation

  • van den Besselaar, Peter, 2012. "Selection committee membership: Service or self-service," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 580-585.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:6:y:2012:i:4:p:580-585
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2012.05.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157712000430
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2012.05.003?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. Stig Slipersæter & Jean Thèves & Barend van der Meulen, 2007. "Comparing the evolution of national research policies: What patterns of change?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(6), pages 372-388, July.
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2007. "Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 226-238.
    3. Herbert Marsh & Lutz Bornmann, 2009. "Do women have less success in peer review?," Nature, Nature, vol. 459(7246), pages 602-602, May.
    4. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet & Van den Besselaar, Peter, 2010. "A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: Different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 211-220.
    5. Inge van der Weijden & Maaike Verbree & Peter van den Besselaar, 2012. "From bench to bedside: The societal orientation of research leaders: The case of biomedical and health research in the Netherlands," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(3), pages 285-303, May.
    6. Göran Melin & Rickard Danell, 2006. "The top eight percent: Development of approved and rejected applicants for a prestigious grant in Sweden," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(10), pages 702-712, December.
    7. Peter van den Besselaar & Loet Leydesdorff, 2009. "Past performance, peer review and project selection: a case study in the social and behavioral sciences," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 273-288, October.
    8. Liv Langfeldt, 2004. "Expert panels evaluating research: decision-making and sources of bias," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 51-62, April.
    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. Teplitskiy, Misha & Acuna, Daniel & Elamrani-Raoult, Aïda & Körding, Konrad & Evans, James, 2018. "The sociology of scientific validity: How professional networks shape judgement in peer review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1825-1841.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Kevin W. Boyack & Caleb Smith & Richard Klavans, 2018. "Toward predicting research proposal success," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 449-461, February.
    4. Peter van den Besselaar & Ulf Sandström & Hélène Schiffbaenker, 2018. "Studying grant decision-making: a linguistic analysis of review reports," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 313-329, October.
    5. van den Besselaar, Peter & Sandström, Ulf, 2015. "Early career grants, performance, and careers: A study on predictive validity of grant decisions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 826-838.
    6. Adriana Bin & Sergio Salles-Filho & Luiza Maria Capanema & Fernando Antonio Basile Colugnati, 2015. "What difference does it make? Impact of peer-reviewed scholarships on scientific production," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1167-1188, February.
    7. Tobias Opthof & Loet Leydesdorff, 2011. "A comment to the paper by Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 87, 467–481, 2011," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 1011-1016, September.
    8. Maaike Verbree & Edwin Horlings & Peter Groenewegen & Inge Weijden & Peter Besselaar, 2015. "Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: a multivariate study of biomedical research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 25-49, January.
    9. Lepori, Benedetto, 2011. "Coordination modes in public funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 355-367, April.
    10. Marsh, Herbert W. & Jayasinghe, Upali W. & Bond, Nigel W., 2011. "Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 167-180.
    11. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet & Van den Besselaar, Peter, 2010. "A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: Different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 211-220.
    12. Pleun Arensbergen & Inge van der Weijden & Peter Besselaar, 2012. "Gender differences in scientific productivity: a persisting phenomenon?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 857-868, December.
    13. Sandström, Ulf & Van den Besselaar, Peter, 2018. "Funding, evaluation, and the performance of national research systems," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 365-384.
    14. Elsa Addessi & Marta Borgi & Elisabetta Palagi, 2012. "Is Primatology an Equal-Opportunity Discipline?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(1), pages 1-6, January.
    15. Paul Siu Fai Yip & Yunyu Xiao & Clifford Long Hin Wong & Terry Kit Fong Au, 2020. "Is there gender bias in research grant success in social sciences?: Hong Kong as a case study," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    16. Adriana Bin & Sergio Salles-Filho & Ana Carolina Spatti & Jesús Pascual Mena-Chalco & Fernando Antonio Basile Colugnati, 2022. "How much does a Ph.D. scholarship program impact an emerging economy research performance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 6935-6960, December.
    17. Jun-Ying Fu & Xu Zhang & Yun-Hua Zhao & He-Feng Tong & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2012. "Scientific production and citation impact: a bibliometric analysis in acupuncture over three decades," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 1061-1079, December.
    18. Irwin Feller, 2013. "Peer review and expert panels as techniques for evaluating the quality of academic research," Chapters, in: Albert N. Link & Nicholas S. Vonortas (ed.), Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation, chapter 5, pages 115-142, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Day, Theodore Eugene, 2015. "The big consequences of small biases: A simulation of peer review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1266-1270.
    20. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & Hessels, Laurens K., 2011. "Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 463-472, April.

    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:eee:infome:v:6:y:2012:i:4:p:580-585. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    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.