Scientometrics

, Volume 19, Issue 5–6, pp 419–425 | Cite as

Peer review at the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

  • I. Hartmann
  • F. Neidhardt
Article

Abstract

Results of a study designed to investigate the peer review system at theDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft are presented. 242 applications for grants and 639 corresponding reviews were analysed to explore criteria actually used by peers in assessing the quality of proposals. The findings show a wide range of criteria used, an uneven distribution of positive and negative evaluation along these criteria, high inter-referee agreement and different degrees of impact of the evaluations on the overall recommendation.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and references

  1. 1.
    A. Rip, Peer Review is Alive and Well in the United States,Science, Technology & Human Values, 10 (1985), 82–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Cole, J.R. Cole, G. Simon, Chance and Consensus in Peer Review,Science, 214 (1981), 881–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. V. Cicchetti, Reliability of Reviews for the American Psychologist: A Biostatistical Assessment of the Data,American Psychologist, 35 (1980), 300–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. K. Merton,Social Theory and Social Structure, Free Press, Glencoe, Ill., 1957.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    N. W. Storer,The Social System of Science, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1966.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Meierhofer,Projektselektion in der Forschungsförderung, Haupt, Bern, 1983.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The research was conducted at theForschungsinstitut für Soziologie der Universität zu Köln under the heading ofProf. F. Neidhardt. See for details:F. Neidhart,Selbststeuerungsprozesse in der Forschungsförderung—Das Gutachterwesen der DFG, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft: DFG-Tätigkeitsbericht 1988, Bonn, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    R. Lisch, J. Kriz,Grundlagen und Modelle der Inhaltsanalyse—Bestandsaufnahme und Kritik, Rowohlt, Reinbek, 1978.Google Scholar
  10. 12.
    S. Cole, L. Rubin, J. R. Cole,Peer Review in the National Science Foundation—Phase One of a Study, National Academy Press, Washington, D. C., 1978.Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    Recommendation for “resubmission” was computed as missing data.Google Scholar
  12. 14.
    See note 2. 3 and 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 15.
    S. Cole, J. R. Cole, G. Simon, Chance and Consensus in Peer Review,Science, 214 (1981) interpreted corresponding results as luck of the reviewer draw, p. 884.Google Scholar
  14. 16.
    This is done in:I. Hartmann,Begutachtung in der Forschungsförderung. Die Argumente der Gutachter in der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft. Frankfurt, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Hartmann
    • 1
  • F. Neidhardt
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für Sportsoziologie und FriezeitpädagogikDeutsche Sporthochschule KölnKöln 41FRG
  2. 2.Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für SozialforschungBerlin 30FRG

Personalised recommendations