Peer Review of Interdisciplinary Research Proposals
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11638102 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Alan L Porter (0000-0002-4520-6518, corresponding author), Frederick A Rossini |
| Year | 1985 |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 33-38 |
| Publication date | 1985-07-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Science Technology & Human Values (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0162-2439 • E-ISSN: 1552-8251 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/016224398501000304 |
| OpenAlex | W1995412971 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 22 |
The peer review of research results submitted for journal publication raises elementary issues of fairness and reliability.' Peer review of proposals to perform research in the future, however, is even more problematic. For many reasons, judging untested ideas is inherently more uncertain than evaluating completed work. Research has a way of evolving in directions that are unchartable in advance-certain data may prove unattainable, new discoveries by the researchers or by others may point to reorientation, or personnel may change. In a 1974 study, Grace Carter found that ratings of National Institutes of Health (NIH) initial grant applications were correlated with independent ratings of their later reapplications by a thin 0.4 (i.e., only 16% of the variance was accounted for by the other rating).2 While this figure includes unreliability due to an independent rerating, it also reflects changes in the perception of the value of specific projects as research progresses. One National Science Foundation (NSF) proposal reviewer made special note of exemplary staffing plans of a proposal he evaluated.3 Ironically, that same project changed staff repeatedly to the extent that it was not possible even to identify a project leader. In essence, then, peer review of proposals is a difficult business. Peer review as a process has engendered strong
Data science · Engineering ethics · Management science · Peer review · Political science · Computer Science · Engineering · Health and Medical Research Impacts · Health Sciences Research and Education · Law
The art of getting funded
How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research
Bias in peer review
Criteria for assessing grant applications
The Influence of Disciplinary Origins on Peer Review Normativities in a New Discipline
Interdisciplinarity and expert rating
How do referees integrate evaluation criteria into their overall judgment? Evidence from grant peer review
Interdisciplinary research and technological impact
Is the panel fair? Evaluating panel compositions through network analysis. The case of research assessments in Italy
Interdisciplinary knowledge integration as a unique knowledge source for technology development and the role of funding allocation
New Light on Old Boys
Boundary-Work in the Health Research Field
Selectivity in Funding
Practising interdisciplinarity in the interplay between disciplines
Humankind in the biosphere
The Spanish Equality Law and the Gender Balance in the Evaluation Committees
The Selection of Scientific Talent in the Allocation of Research Grants
Communicating and compromising on disciplinary expertise in the peer review of research proposals
The Power of Peer Review on Transdisciplinary Discovery
Collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and the epistemology of contemporary science
Reward Systems and NSF University Research Centers
Role Strain in University Research Centers
| Unique citing works | 22 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,58 |
| Citation span | 1988 - 2025 (38) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 22 |