Review panel consensus and post-decision commercial performance: a study of early stage technologies

Galbraith, Craig S.; DeNoble, Alex F.; Ehrlich, Sanford B.; Mesmer‐Magnus, Jessica

doi:10.1007/s10961-009-9122-6

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using an alternative metric, Galbraith et al showed that peer reviewers’ opinions were only weakly predictive of the commercial success of early stage technologies in small businesses ( Galbraith et al , 2010 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Peer review decisions award an estimated >95% of academic medical research funding, so it is crucial to understand how well they work and if they could be improved. Methods: This paper summarises evidence from 105 papers identified through a literature search on the effectiveness and burden of peer review for grant funding. Results: There is a remarkable paucity of evidence about the efficiency of peer review for funding allocation, given its centrality to the modern system of science. From the available evidence, we can identify some conclusions around the effectiveness and burden of peer review. The strongest evidence around effectiveness indicates a bias against innovative research. There is also fairly clear evidence that peer review is, at best, a weak predictor of future research performance, and that ratings vary considerably between reviewers. There is some evidence of age bias and cronyism. Good evidence shows that the burden of peer review is high and that around 75% of it falls on applicants. By contrast, many of the efforts to reduce burden are focused on funders and reviewers/panel members. Conclusions: We suggest funders should acknowledge, assess and analyse the uncertainty around peer review, even using reviewers’ uncertainty as an input to funding decisions. Funders could consider a lottery element in some parts of their funding allocation process, to reduce both burden and bias, and allow better evaluation of decision processes. Alternatively, the distribution of scores from different reviewers could be better utilised as a possible way to identify novel, innovative research. Above all, there is a need for open, transparent experimentation and evaluation of different ways to fund research. This also requires more openness across the wider scientific community to support such investigations, acknowledging the lack of evidence about the primacy of the current system and the impossibility of achieving perfection.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, the evaluation of the submitted ideas was executed solely by a jury of experts. However, experts may exhibit only a limited ability to evaluate quality (Galbraith, DeNoble & Ehrlich, 2008) and unduly reject submitted ideas (Möslein, Haller & Bullinger, 2010). Future studies should investigate whether expert evaluation or open evaluation by a group of evaluators of such user groups (Möslein, Haller & Bullinger, 2010) is the better assessment method.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of Lead User Characteristics Driving the Quality of Service Innovation Ideas

Schuhmacher¹,

Kuester²

2012

Creat Innov Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research indicates that creative ideas provide the seed for successful service innovations. However, little attention has been paid to understanding idea creation, especially for service innovations. Lead user analysis has been shown to provide the highest potential to create attractive innovation ideas. But which characteristics in lead users are important in this regard is still under‐researched. In the realm of an idea contest, we examine the impact of specific lead user characteristics in driving the quality of service innovation ideas. Our study broadens the understanding of which customers are suitable and should be activated for service innovation idea contests. Using the data of 120 ideas resulting from an idea contest for new online services of soccer clubs, our findings demonstrate that specific lead user characteristics affect the quality of service ideas generated. We find that dissatisfaction with existing services has the highest impact on idea quality. Thus, companies should make use of their complaint management database to invite dissatisfied users to participate in idea contests. The results also show that highly experienced users provide ideas of higher quality. Our findings imply that companies should design closed‐membership idea contests so that only people who show specific characteristics can be admitted.

show abstract

“…To differentiate between technologies we used the concept of the technology readiness level (TRL), as adopted by Mankins (2009). We acknowledge the critique that the perception of technology readiness is highly dependent on organizational specifics (Heslop et al, 2001) and that it is difficult to precisely determine the commercialization potential of early-stage technologies (Galbraith et al, 2010). Nonetheless, we use the TRL terminology as it allows for cross-case comparisons.…”

Section: Case Study Selection and Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Students as scientists’ co-pilots at the onset of technology transfer: a two-way learning process

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To provide further knowledge and technology transfer to society, universities are exploring new collaborative models. These new models are regarded as promising alternatives to the patent-centric linear model. However, their implementation requires revising the roles of the actors in the technology transfer process and their relationships. While collaborative models could indeed be an attractive option for universities, there is limited evidence on how these collaboration processes could be effectively introduced. We use a longitudinal embedded multiple case study to explore the contribution of knowledge interactions between scientists and students in the preliminary steps of the technology transfer process. We investigate the learning dynamics between the focal actor, i.e., the scientist, and the students in a university setting to decipher how the introduction of such collaborative processes can contribute to knowledge and technology transfer. Our results suggest that students enrolled in an educational program can contribute to the scientist’s interest and engagement in technology transfer. However, we find out that the extent of the students’ contribution depends on the shared consensus over the technology function and the openness of the scientist to reconsider the technology’s meaning. We contribute to the ongoing exploration of alternative models for technology transfer and the identification of additional roles that students can take in entrepreneurial university ecosystems.

show abstract

Review panel consensus and post-decision commercial performance: a study of early stage technologies

Abstract: Grant review, Commercialization success, Prediction, Panel consensus, O32,

Cited by 8 publications

References 64 publications

What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?

What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?

Identification of Lead User Characteristics Driving the Quality of Service Innovation Ideas

Students as scientists’ co-pilots at the onset of technology transfer: a two-way learning process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About