IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v50y2023i4p619-632..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of research proposals by peer review panels: broader panels for broader assessments?

Author

Listed:
  • Rebecca Abma-Schouten
  • Joey Gijbels
  • Wendy Reijmerink
  • Ingeborg Meijer

Abstract

Panel peer review is widely used to decide which research proposals receive funding. Through this exploratory observational study at two large biomedical and health research funders in the Netherlands, we gain insight into how scientific quality and societal relevance are discussed in panel meetings. We explore, in ten review panel meetings of biomedical and health funding programmes, how panel composition and formal assessment criteria affect the arguments used. We observe that more scientific arguments are used than arguments related to societal relevance and expected impact. Also, more diverse panels result in a wider range of arguments, largely for the benefit of arguments related to societal relevance and impact. We discuss how funders can contribute to the quality of peer review by creating a shared conceptual framework that better defines research quality and societal relevance. We also contribute to a further understanding of the role of diverse peer review panels.

Suggested Citation

  • Rebecca Abma-Schouten & Joey Gijbels & Wendy Reijmerink & Ingeborg Meijer, 2023. "Evaluation of research proposals by peer review panels: broader panels for broader assessments?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 619-632.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:4:p:619-632.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scad009
    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.

    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:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:4:p:619-632.. 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/spp .

    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.