CZ:Ref:DOI:10.1126/science.7302566: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Daniel Mietchen (started) |
imported>Daniel Mietchen m (.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{cite journal| author=Cole S, Cole JR, Simon GA| title=Chance and consensus in peer review | {{cite journal| author=Cole S, Cole JR, Simon GA| title=Chance and consensus in peer review | journal=Science | year= 1981 | volume= 214 | issue= 4523 | pages= 881-6 | pmid=7302566 | ||
| url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=clinical.uthscsa.edu/cite&[email protected]&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=7302566 | doi=10.1126/science.7302566 }} | | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=clinical.uthscsa.edu/cite&[email protected]&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=7302566 | doi=10.1126/science.7302566 }} | ||
:Summary: "An experiment in which 150 [[research proposal|proposals]] submitted to the [[National Science Foundation]] were [[peer review|evaluated]] independently by a new set of reviewers indicates that getting a [[research grant]] depends to a significant extent on [[chance]]. The degree of disagreement within the population of eligible reviewers is such that whether or not a proposal is funded depends in a large proportion of cases upon which reviewers happen to be selected for it. No evidence of [[systematic bias]] in the selection of NSF reviewers was found." | :Summary: "An experiment in which 150 [[research proposal|proposals]] submitted to the [[National Science Foundation]] were [[peer review|evaluated]] independently by a new set of reviewers indicates that getting a [[research grant]] depends to a significant extent on [[chance]]. The degree of disagreement within the population of eligible reviewers is such that whether or not a proposal is funded depends in a large proportion of cases upon which reviewers happen to be selected for it. No evidence of [[systematic bias]] in the selection of NSF reviewers was found." | ||
Latest revision as of 15:09, 2 December 2009
Cole S, Cole JR, Simon GA (1981). "Chance and consensus in peer review". Science 214 (4523): 881-6. DOI:10.1126/science.7302566. PMID 7302566. Research Blogging. [e]
- Summary: "An experiment in which 150 proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation were evaluated independently by a new set of reviewers indicates that getting a research grant depends to a significant extent on chance. The degree of disagreement within the population of eligible reviewers is such that whether or not a proposal is funded depends in a large proportion of cases upon which reviewers happen to be selected for it. No evidence of systematic bias in the selection of NSF reviewers was found."