IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v34y2025iprvaf047..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Meetings that matter: the dual benefits of panel peer review

Author

Listed:
  • Kristin Oxley

Abstract

Grant peer review panels constitute a central mechanism for distributing competitive research funding, yet how such panels add value to assessments remains understudied. This exploratory analysis demonstrates that panel review can add value by increasing the extent of systematic over heuristic information processing, potentially resulting in different review outcomes than that which aggregation of individual reviews produces. On the one hand, the prospect of panel discussion can influence individual application processing, as panellists, motivated by reputational concerns, carry out more systematic individual reviews. On the other hand, panel discussion can pool and quality check panellists’ assessments, contributing further to systematic information processing. However, the extent of these benefits depends on the characteristics of the review task. The implications of these findings for review process design are examined.

Suggested Citation

  • Kristin Oxley, 2025. "Meetings that matter: the dual benefits of panel peer review," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 34, pages 1-047..
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:34:y:2025:i::p:rvaf047.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvaf047
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:34:y:2025:i::p:rvaf047.. 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.