Judging clinical research questions: What criteria are used?

Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices

“…Our typology of these criteria is consistent with previous data [5], [16], [24]. The main differences across calls for proposals related to the definitions and weighting of the criteria.…”

“…Feasibility was assessed objectively, based on methodological or financial considerations or, more often, subjectively, based on the reviewers’ personal experience and perceptions of the applicant’s environment. That subjective factors influence peer reviews has been suggested previously [16], [31], [32]. Subjectivity may cause two main problems: reviewers may prefer projects embedded along conventional avenues of research over innovative proposals [33], [34], and they may prefer senior researchers who already have a strong reputation over younger researchers.…”

“…Previous studies focused either on assessment procedures [4], [5] or on grant application review methods [15], [16]. We used a convenience sample of French and international calls for proposals.…”

“…Subjectivity may cause two main problems: reviewers may prefer projects embedded along conventional avenues of research over innovative proposals [33], [34], and they may prefer senior researchers who already have a strong reputation over younger researchers. This last bias, known as the St Matthew paradox [1], [16], results in funds being preferentially allocated to researchers whose have received funding in the past and therefore disadvantages innovative proposals written by new researchers [33].…”

Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices

“…Our typology of these criteria is consistent with previous data [5], [16], [24]. The main differences across calls for proposals related to the definitions and weighting of the criteria.…”

“…Feasibility was assessed objectively, based on methodological or financial considerations or, more often, subjectively, based on the reviewers’ personal experience and perceptions of the applicant’s environment. That subjective factors influence peer reviews has been suggested previously [16], [31], [32]. Subjectivity may cause two main problems: reviewers may prefer projects embedded along conventional avenues of research over innovative proposals [33], [34], and they may prefer senior researchers who already have a strong reputation over younger researchers.…”

“…Previous studies focused either on assessment procedures [4], [5] or on grant application review methods [15], [16]. We used a convenience sample of French and international calls for proposals.…”

“…Subjectivity may cause two main problems: reviewers may prefer projects embedded along conventional avenues of research over innovative proposals [33], [34], and they may prefer senior researchers who already have a strong reputation over younger researchers. This last bias, known as the St Matthew paradox [1], [16], results in funds being preferentially allocated to researchers whose have received funding in the past and therefore disadvantages innovative proposals written by new researchers [33].…”

The micro-dynamics of scientific choice: Research project motivations among public affairs academics

“…Benner et al 2012, Brattström & Hellström 2019, Langfeldt 2002, Wallace et al 2018, and even upon the views of practicing researchers about what research ought to be pursued or what criteria should be used in deciding (e.g. Neff 2011, Sutherland et al 1993. With minor suggestions for adjustment (e.g.…”

Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices

“…Our typology of these criteria is consistent with previous data [5], [16], [24]. The main differences across calls for proposals related to the definitions and weighting of the criteria.…”

“…Feasibility was assessed objectively, based on methodological or financial considerations or, more often, subjectively, based on the reviewers’ personal experience and perceptions of the applicant’s environment. That subjective factors influence peer reviews has been suggested previously [16], [31], [32]. Subjectivity may cause two main problems: reviewers may prefer projects embedded along conventional avenues of research over innovative proposals [33], [34], and they may prefer senior researchers who already have a strong reputation over younger researchers.…”

“…Previous studies focused either on assessment procedures [4], [5] or on grant application review methods [15], [16]. We used a convenience sample of French and international calls for proposals.…”

“…Subjectivity may cause two main problems: reviewers may prefer projects embedded along conventional avenues of research over innovative proposals [33], [34], and they may prefer senior researchers who already have a strong reputation over younger researchers. This last bias, known as the St Matthew paradox [1], [16], results in funds being preferentially allocated to researchers whose have received funding in the past and therefore disadvantages innovative proposals written by new researchers [33].…”

The micro-dynamics of scientific choice: Research project motivations among public affairs academics

“…Benner et al 2012, Brattström & Hellström 2019, Langfeldt 2002, Wallace et al 2018, and even upon the views of practicing researchers about what research ought to be pursued or what criteria should be used in deciding (e.g. Neff 2011, Sutherland et al 1993. With minor suggestions for adjustment (e.g.…”

Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices

“…Our typology of these criteria is consistent with previous data [5], [16], [24]. The main differences across calls for proposals related to the definitions and weighting of the criteria.…”

“…Feasibility was assessed objectively, based on methodological or financial considerations or, more often, subjectively, based on the reviewers’ personal experience and perceptions of the applicant’s environment. That subjective factors influence peer reviews has been suggested previously [16], [31], [32]. Subjectivity may cause two main problems: reviewers may prefer projects embedded along conventional avenues of research over innovative proposals [33], [34], and they may prefer senior researchers who already have a strong reputation over younger researchers.…”

“…Previous studies focused either on assessment procedures [4], [5] or on grant application review methods [15], [16]. We used a convenience sample of French and international calls for proposals.…”

“…Subjectivity may cause two main problems: reviewers may prefer projects embedded along conventional avenues of research over innovative proposals [33], [34], and they may prefer senior researchers who already have a strong reputation over younger researchers. This last bias, known as the St Matthew paradox [1], [16], results in funds being preferentially allocated to researchers whose have received funding in the past and therefore disadvantages innovative proposals written by new researchers [33].…”

The micro-dynamics of scientific choice: Research project motivations among public affairs academics

“…Benner et al 2012, Brattström & Hellström 2019, Langfeldt 2002, Wallace et al 2018, and even upon the views of practicing researchers about what research ought to be pursued or what criteria should be used in deciding (e.g. Neff 2011, Sutherland et al 1993. With minor suggestions for adjustment (e.g.…”