Erratum to: A concept for inferring ‘frontier research’ in grant proposals

Erratum to: Scientometrics (2013) 97:129–148 DOI 10.1007/s11192-013-1008-6

In the original publication of the article, Eq. 4, Table 4 and a few typos are corrected by the authors as given below:

Equation 4: The minus sign in the denominator in the original publication is wrong. The correct equation should be

$$ \Pr (Y_{i} = 1) = {\Lambda} (\varvec{X}_{i}^{(k)} ,\,{\varvec{\beta}}) = \frac{{\text{exp}{\varvec{X}}_{i}^{(k)} \,{\varvec{\beta}}}}{{\text{1 + exp}{\varvec{X}}_{i}^{(k)} \,{\varvec{\beta}}}} $$

(4)

Table 4: The parameter estimate for interdisciplinarity in the original publication with a positive value of 0.132 is wrong. The correct value is −0.132 and the corrected Table 4 is given below.

Table 4 Parameter estimates of the discrete choice model for the application of five bibliometric indicators

This minus sign implies for following passages in the further text:

In page 144, paragraph 6 the sentence in the 4th line should read as “An increase of a proposal’s interdisciplinarity by 1% decreases the likelihood for proposal acceptance by a factor 1.14, holding all other variables constant.”

In page 146, paragraph 1 the sentence in 3rd line should read as “In terms of the ERC review process, that is intended to explicitly select proposals reflecting frontier research, the results indicate that this aspiration holds when considering the similarity of a proposal to emerging research fields. In contrast, for interdisciplinarity, we find a negative relationship, that is, higher interdisciplinarity of a proposal decreases its selection probability. Further, the modelling results indicate that the ERC review process is not able to single out dimensions of frontier research that are related to timeliness, risk, and pasteuresqueness.”