IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/1002010.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Grant Application Review: The Case of Transparency

Author

Listed:
  • David Gurwitz
  • Elena Milanesi
  • Thomas Koenig

Abstract

: Grant Application Review: The Case of Transparency Public funding agencies should be more transparent in awarding research grants to allow researchers and the public better insight into decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • David Gurwitz & Elena Milanesi & Thomas Koenig, 2014. "Grant Application Review: The Case of Transparency," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-6, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:1002010
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002010
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002010&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002010?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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. Thomas Heinze, 2008. "How to sponsor ground-breaking research: A comparison of funding schemes," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(5), pages 302-318, June.
    3. John P. A. Ioannidis, 2011. "Fund people not projects," Nature, Nature, vol. 477(7366), pages 529-531, September.
    4. Daniel Mietchen, 2011. "Peer reviews: make them public," Nature, Nature, vol. 473(7348), pages 452-452, May.
    5. Rüdiger Mutz & Lutz Bornmann & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2012. "Heterogeneity of Inter-Rater Reliabilities of Grant Peer Reviews and Its Determinants: A General Estimating Equations Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(10), pages 1-10, October.
    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. Feliciani, Thomas & Morreau, Michael & Luo, Junwen & Lucas, Pablo & Shankar, Kalpana, 2022. "Designing grant-review panels for better funding decisions: Lessons from an empirically calibrated simulation model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    2. Daniel Mietchen, 2014. "The Transformative Nature of Transparency in Research Funding," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-3, December.
    3. Gill, Chelsea & Mehrotra, Vishal & Moses, Olayinka & Bui, Binh, 2023. "The impact of the pitching research framework on AFAANZ grant applications," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).

    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. David G Pina & Darko Hren & Ana Marušić, 2015. "Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Daniel Mietchen, 2014. "The Transformative Nature of Transparency in Research Funding," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-3, December.
    3. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    4. Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2018. "The bibliometric quotient (BQ), or how to measure a researcher’s performance capacity: A Bayesian Poisson Rasch model," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1282-1295.
    5. Patrícia Martinková & Dan Goldhaber & Elena Erosheva, 2018. "Disparities in ratings of internal and external applicants: A case for model-based inter-rater reliability," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, October.
    6. Cinzia Daraio & Simone Di Leo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2022. "Using the Leiden Rankings as a Heuristics: Evidence from Italian universities in the European landscape," LEM Papers Series 2022/08, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    7. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    8. Krist Vaesen & Joel Katzav, 2017. "How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-11, September.
    9. Balázs Győrffy & Andrea Magda Nagy & Péter Herman & Ádám Török, 2018. "Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: an evaluation of the first 117 research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 409-426, October.
    10. Seeber, Marco & Alon, Ilan & Pina, David G. & Piro, Fredrik Niclas & Seeber, Michele, 2022. "Predictors of applying for and winning an ERC Proof-of-Concept grant: An automated machine learning model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    11. Feliciani, Thomas & Morreau, Michael & Luo, Junwen & Lucas, Pablo & Shankar, Kalpana, 2022. "Designing grant-review panels for better funding decisions: Lessons from an empirically calibrated simulation model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    12. Lutz Bornmann, 2015. "Interrater reliability and convergent validity of F1000Prime peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(12), pages 2415-2426, December.
    13. Andereggen, Stefan & Vischer, Moritz & Boutellier, Roman, 2012. "Honest but broke: The dilemma of universities acting as honest brokers," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 118-126.
    14. Kiri, Bralind & Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2018. "Above a swamp: A theory of high-quality scientific production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 827-839.
    15. 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.
    16. Dangzhi Zhao, 2010. "Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: a case study of the library and information science field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 293-306, August.
    17. Luukkonen, Terttu, 2014. "Universities, Funding Systems, and the Renewal of the Industrial Knowledge Base – UNI Project Findings," ETLA Reports 33, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    18. Charles Ayoubi & Michele Pezzoni & Fabiana Visentin, 2021. "Does It Pay to Do Novel Science? The Selectivity Patterns in Science Funding," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(5), pages 635-648.
    19. Xiaoyu Liu & Xuefeng Wang & Donghua Zhu, 2022. "Reviewer recommendation method for scientific research proposals: a case for NSFC," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3343-3366, June.
    20. Karolin Sjöö & Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner, 2023. "Gender mainstreaming research funding: a study of effects on STEM research proposals," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 304-317.

    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:plo:pbio00:1002010. 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: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    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.