IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v99y2014i2d10.1007_s11192-013-1187-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assigning evaluators to research grant applications: the case of Slovak Research and Development Agency

Author

Listed:
  • Katarína Cechlárová

    (P.J. Šafárik University)

  • Tamás Fleiner

    (Budapest University of Technology and Economics)

  • Eva Potpinková

    (P.J. Šafárik University)

Abstract

Peer evaluation of research grant applications is a crucial step in the funding decisions of many science funding agencies. Funding bodies take various measures to increase the independence and quality of this process, sometimes leading to difficult combinatorial problems. We propose a novel method based on network flow theory to find assignments of evaluators to grant applications that obey the rules formulated by the Slovak Research and Development Agency.

Suggested Citation

  • Katarína Cechlárová & Tamás Fleiner & Eva Potpinková, 2014. "Assigning evaluators to research grant applications: the case of Slovak Research and Development Agency," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 495-506, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:99:y:2014:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1187-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1187-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-013-1187-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-013-1187-1?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. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2011. "Evaluating research: from informed peer review to bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 499-514, June.
    2. M. Lee & K. Om & J. Koh, 1999. "Blind review of research proposals in Korea: Its effectiveness and factors affecting applicant detection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 45(1), pages 17-31, May.
    3. Wade D. Cook & Boaz Golany & Moshe Kress & Michal Penn & Tal Raviv, 2005. "Optimal Allocation of Proposals to Reviewers to Facilitate Effective Ranking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(4), pages 655-661, April.
    4. Upali W. Jayasinghe & Herbert W. Marsh & Nigel Bond, 2006. "A new reader trial approach to peer review in funding research grants: An Australian experiment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(3), pages 591-606, December.
    5. J. W. Fedderke, 2013. "The objectivity of national research foundation peer review in South Africa assessed against bibliometric indexes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 177-206, November.
    6. Hui Fang, 2011. "Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(2), pages 293-301, May.
    7. Martin Reinhart, 2009. "Peer review of grant applications in biology and medicine. Reliability, fairness, and validity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 789-809, December.
    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. Yordan Kalmukov, 2020. "An algorithm for automatic assignment of reviewers to papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 1811-1850, September.
    2. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Thomas Feliciani & Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Pablo Lucas & Flaminio Squazzoni & Ana Marušić & Kalpana Shankar, 2019. "A scoping review of simulation models of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 555-594, October.
    3. Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Sandra Miguel & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2015. "What factors affect the visibility of Argentinean publications in humanities and social sciences in Scopus? Some evidence beyond the geographic realm of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 789-810, January.
    4. 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.
    5. Olugbenga Oladinrin & Kasun Gomis & Wadu Mesthrige Jayantha & Lovelin Obi & Muhammad Qasim Rana, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Global Scientific Literature on Aging in Place," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-16, November.
    6. Fernandez Martinez, Roberto & Lostado Lorza, Ruben & Santos Delgado, Ana Alexandra & Piedra, Nelson, 2021. "Use of classification trees and rule-based models to optimize the funding assignment to research projects: A case study of UTPL," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    7. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    8. Nadeem Shafique Butt & Ahmad Azam Malik & Muhammad Qaiser Shahbaz, 2021. "Bibliometric Analysis of Statistics Journals Indexed in Web of Science Under Emerging Source Citation Index," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440209, January.
    9. Eliseo Reategui & Alause Pires & Michel Carniato & Sergio Roberto Kieling Franco, 2020. "Evaluation of Brazilian research output in education: confronting international and national contexts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 427-444, October.
    10. Nikolaos A. Kazakis, 2014. "Bibliometric evaluation of the research performance of the Greek civil engineering departments in National and European context," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 505-525, October.
    11. Hamid Bouabid & Hind Achachi, 2022. "Size of science team at university and internal co-publications: science policy implications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 6993-7013, December.
    12. Xuan Zhen Liu & Hui Fang, 2012. "Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly. Part II," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 607-616, February.
    13. Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx, 2014. "How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 487-509, January.
    14. Gennaro Guida, 2018. "Italian Economics Departments’ Scientific Research Performance: Comparison between VQR and ASN Methodologies," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(9), pages 182-182, August.
    15. Woiwode, Hendrik, 2020. "Scholars as government-appointed research evaluators: Do they create congruence between their professional quality standards and political demands?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 15(10), pages 1-1.
    16. Oriana Gava & Fabio Bartolini & Francesca Venturi & Gianluca Brunori & Alberto Pardossi, 2020. "Improving Policy Evidence Base for Agricultural Sustainability and Food Security: A Content Analysis of Life Cycle Assessment Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-29, February.
    17. Mingkun Wei, 2020. "Research on impact evaluation of open access journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1027-1049, February.
    18. Hendrik Woiwode, 2020. "Scholars as government-appointed research evaluators: Do they create congruence between their professional quality standards and political demands?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-14, October.
    19. Franc Mali, 2013. "Why an Unbiased External R&D Evaluation System is Important for the Progress of Social Sciences—the Case of a Small Social Science Community," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-14, December.
    20. Yu Liu & Wei Zuo & Ying Gao & Yanhong Qiao, 2013. "Comprehensive geometrical interpretation of h-type indices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(2), pages 605-615, August.

    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:spr:scient:v:99:y:2014:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1187-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.