Grant proposals submitted for funding are usually selected by a peer-review rating process. Some proposals may result in discordant peer-review ratings and therefore require discussion by the selection committee members. The issue is which peer-review ratings are considered as discordant. We propose a simple method to identify such proposals. Our approach is based on the intraclass correlation coefficient, which is usually used in assessing agreement in studies with continuous ratings
Peer review is a gatekeeper, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but it has been critic...
Peer review is a gatekeeper, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but it has been critic...
Background: Decisions about which applications to fund are generally based on the mean scores of a p...
Grant proposals submitted for funding are usually selected by a peer-review rating process. Some pro...
Grant proposals submitted for funding are usually selected by a peer-review rating process. Some pro...
Peer-review is widely used throughout academia, most notably in the publication of journal articles ...
<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Peer review of grant applications has been criticized as lacking reliabil...
This study examines a basic assumption of peer review, namely, the idea that there is a consen- sus ...
BACKGROUND: Peer review of grant applications has been criticized as lacking reliability. Studies sh...
Peer reviewers at many funding agencies and scientific journals are asked to score submissions both ...
Background One of the most important weaknesses of the peer review process is that different review...
<div><p>We analysed the peer review of grant proposals under Marie Curie Actions, a major EU researc...
Obtaining grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is increasingly competitive, as...
When distributing grants, research councils use peer expertise as a guarantee for supporting the bes...
Peer review is a gatekeeper, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but it has been critic...
Peer review is a gatekeeper, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but it has been critic...
Peer review is a gatekeeper, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but it has been critic...
Background: Decisions about which applications to fund are generally based on the mean scores of a p...
Grant proposals submitted for funding are usually selected by a peer-review rating process. Some pro...
Grant proposals submitted for funding are usually selected by a peer-review rating process. Some pro...
Peer-review is widely used throughout academia, most notably in the publication of journal articles ...
<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Peer review of grant applications has been criticized as lacking reliabil...
This study examines a basic assumption of peer review, namely, the idea that there is a consen- sus ...
BACKGROUND: Peer review of grant applications has been criticized as lacking reliability. Studies sh...
Peer reviewers at many funding agencies and scientific journals are asked to score submissions both ...
Background One of the most important weaknesses of the peer review process is that different review...
<div><p>We analysed the peer review of grant proposals under Marie Curie Actions, a major EU researc...
Obtaining grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is increasingly competitive, as...
When distributing grants, research councils use peer expertise as a guarantee for supporting the bes...
Peer review is a gatekeeper, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but it has been critic...
Peer review is a gatekeeper, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but it has been critic...
Peer review is a gatekeeper, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but it has been critic...
Background: Decisions about which applications to fund are generally based on the mean scores of a p...