IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0027557.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Peer Review of Grant Applications: A Simple Method to Identify Proposals with Discordant Reviews

Author

Listed:
  • Bruno Giraudeau
  • Clémence Leyrat
  • Amélie Le Gouge
  • Julie Léger
  • Agnès Caille

Abstract

Grant proposals submitted for funding are usually selected by a peer-review rating process. Some proposals may result in discordant peer-review ratings and therefore require discussion by the selection committee members. The issue is which peer-review ratings are considered as discordant. We propose a simple method to identify such proposals. Our approach is based on the intraclass correlation coefficient, which is usually used in assessing agreement in studies with continuous ratings.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruno Giraudeau & Clémence Leyrat & Amélie Le Gouge & Julie Léger & Agnès Caille, 2011. "Peer Review of Grant Applications: A Simple Method to Identify Proposals with Discordant Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-3, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0027557
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027557
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027557
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027557&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0027557?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Grażyna Wieczorkowska & Katarzyna Kowalczyk, 2021. "Ensuring Sustainable Evaluation: How to Improve Quality of Evaluating Grant Proposals?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-11, March.

    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:pone00:0027557. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.