Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Row-column (RC) association model applied to grant peer review

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds (1999), A Foundation in Progress. Stuttgart, Germany: Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds (B.I.F.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Daniel, H.-D. (2005a), Committee peer review at an international research foundation: predictive validity and fairness of selection decisions on post-graduate fellowship applications. Research Evaluation, 14: 15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L, Daniel, H.-D. (2005b), Criteria used by a peer review committee for selection of research fellows — A boolean probit analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13: 296–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Daniel, H.-D. (2005c), Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work? Scientometrics, 65: 391–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Daniel, H.-D. (2005d), Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Analysis of reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees’ decisions. Scientometrics, 63: 297–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Daniel, H.-D. (2006a), Potential sources of bias in research fellowship assessment. Effects of university prestige and field of study on approval and rejection of fellowship applications. Research Evaluation, 15: 209–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Daniel, H.-D. (2006b), Selecting scientific excellence through committee peer review — a citation analysis of publications previously published to approval or rejection of post-doctoral research fellowship applicants. Scientometrics, 68: 427–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Daniel, H.-D. (2007), Gatekeepers of science — Effects of external reviewers’ attributes on the assessments of fellowship applications. Journal of Informetrics, 1: 83–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanario, J. M. (1998), Peer review for journals as it stands today — Part 1. Science Communication, 19: 181–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cicchetti, D. V. (1991), The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: a cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14: 119–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Eliason, S. C. (2006), The CDAS Homepage. Retrieved November 28, from http://www.soc.umn.edu/%7Eeliason/index_files/CDAS_Homepage.htm

  • Fröhlich, H. (2001), It all depends on the individuals. Research promotion — a balanced system of control. B.I.F. Futura, 16: 69–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, L. A. (1984), The Analysis of Cross-Classified Data Having Ordered Categories, Cambridge, MA, USA, Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargens, L. L., Herting, J. R. (1990), A new approach to referees assessments of manuscripts. Social Science Research, 19: 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargens, L. L., Herting, J. R. (2006), Analyzing the association between referees’ recommendations and editors’ decisions. Scientometrics, 67: 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, C. (1995), Evaluation of cardiovascular grant-in-aid applications by peer review: influence of internal and external reviewers and committees. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 11: 864–868.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D. (1985), Insiders, outsiders, and efficiency in a National Science Foundation panel. American Psychologist, 40: 148–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawal, B. (2003), Categorical Data Analysis with SAS and SPSS Applications, London, UK, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller, A. C. (2002), Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses, Medford, NJ, USA, Information Today, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessely, S. (1998), Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? Lancet, 352: 301–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Professorship for Social Psychology and Research on Higher Education, Zurich, Switzerland

    Lutz Bornmann, Ruediger Mutz & Hans-Dieter Daniel

  2. Evaluation Office, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Hans-Dieter Daniel

Authors
  1. Lutz Bornmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ruediger Mutz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hans-Dieter Daniel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lutz Bornmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bornmann, L., Mutz, R. & Daniel, HD. Row-column (RC) association model applied to grant peer review. Scientometrics 73, 139–147 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-1797-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-1797-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation