IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qss/dqsswp/1905.html

Peer-review of grant proposals. An analysis of Economic and Social Research Council grant applications

Author

Listed:
  • John Jerrim

    (Department of Social Science, Institute of Education, University College London
    Department of Social Science, Institute of Education, University College London and Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics)

Abstract

Peer-review is widely used throughout academia, most notably in the publication of journal articles and the allocation of research grants. Yet peer-review has been subject to much criticism, including being slow, unreliable, subjective and potentially prone to bias. This paper contributes to this literature by investigating the consistency of peer-reviews and the impact they have upon a high-stakes outcome (whether a research grant is funded). Analysing data from 4,000 social science grant proposals and 15,000 reviews, this paper illustrates how the peer-review scores assigned by different reviewers have only low levels of consistency (a correlation between reviewer scores of only 0.2). Reviews provided by ‘nominated reviewers’ (i.e. reviewers selected by the grant applicant) appear to be overly generous and do not correlate with the evaluations provided by independent reviewers. Yet a positive review from a nominated reviewer is strongly linked to whether a grant is awarded. Finally, a single negative peer-review is shown to reduce the chances of a proposal being funding from around 55% to around 25% (even when it has otherwise been rated highly).

Suggested Citation

  • John Jerrim, 2019. "Peer-review of grant proposals. An analysis of Economic and Social Research Council grant applications," DoQSS Working Papers 19-05, Quantitative Social Science - UCL Social Research Institute, University College London.
    • Handle: RePEc:qss:dqsswp:1905
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.ucl.ac.uk/REPEc/pdf/qsswp1905.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Obrecht & Karl Tibelius & Guy D'Aloisio, 2007. "Examining the value added by committee discussion in the review of applications for research awards," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 79-91, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2010. "A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(12), pages 1-10, December.
    4. repec:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:2952-2957 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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. Stephen A Gallo & Afton S Carpenter & Scott R Glisson, 2013. "Teleconference versus Face-to-Face Scientific Peer Review of Grant Application: Effects on Review Outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-9, August.
    3. repec:plo:pone00:0061401 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Bradford Demarest & Guo Freeman & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2014. "The reviewer in the mirror: examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 717-735, October.
    5. Dag W. Aksnes & Henrik Karlstrøm & Fredrik N. Piro, 2026. "Self-reported and bibliometric interdisciplinarity measures rarely correspond: a survey-based comparative analysis of indicators and researcher perceptions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 131(1), pages 189-208, January.
    6. Sven E. Hug, 2024. "How do referees integrate evaluation criteria into their overall judgment? Evidence from grant peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(3), pages 1231-1253, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Zhongyi Wang & Keying Wang & Jiyue Liu & Jing Huang & Haihua Chen, 2022. "Measuring the innovation of method knowledge elements in scientific literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2803-2827, May.
    9. Marco Pautasso, 2010. "Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 193-202, October.
    10. Peter Vaz da Fonseca & Andrea Decourt Savelli & Michele Nascimento Juca, 2020. "A Systematic Review of the Influence of Taxation on Corporate Capital Structure," International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), vol. 0(2), pages 155-178.
    11. 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.
    12. Ryan Liu & Steven Jecmen & Vincent Conitzer & Fei Fang & Nihar B Shah, 2024. "Testing for reviewer anchoring in peer review: A randomized controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(11), pages 1-19, November.
    13. Azzurra Ragone & Katsiaryna Mirylenka & Fabio Casati & Maurizio Marchese, 2013. "On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 317-356, November.
    14. Daniel Scott Smith & Neha Nayak Kennard & Tianyu Du & Daniel A. McFarland, 2025. "How Values and Uncertainty Shape Scientific Advance in Peer Review," American Sociological Review, , vol. 90(5), pages 879-915, October.
    15. Hans van Dijk & Marino van Zelst, 2020. "Comfortably Numb? Researchers’ Satisfaction with the Publication System and a Proposal for Radical Change," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, March.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. repec:osf:osfxxx:7dc6a_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Julian Hamann & Frerk Blome & Anna Kosmützky, 2022. "Devices of evaluation: Institutionalization and impact—Introduction to the special issue," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 423-428.
    21. Richard R Snell, 2015. "Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number of Peer Reviewers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    22. 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).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:qss:dqsswp:1905. 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: Dr Neus Bover Fonts (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dqioeuk.html .

    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.