A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: Different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications |
| |
| Authors: | Lutz Bornmann Loet Leydesdorff Peter Van den Besselaar |
| |
| Institution: | 1. ETH Zurich, Professorship for Social Psychology and Research on Higher Education, Zähringerstr. 24, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland;2. Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands;3. Science System Assessment Department, Rathenau Instituut, Anna van Saxenlaan 51, 2593 HW Den Haag, The Netherlands;4. Department of Organization Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;1. Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, P.O. Box 905, 2300 AX Leiden, The Netherlands;2. École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l’information, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal, H3C 3J7, Canada;1. Laboratory for Studies in Research Evaluation, Institute for System Analysis and Computer Science (IASI-CNR), National Research Council, Rome, Italy;2. Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education, Oslo, Norway;3. University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Dept of Engineering and Management, Rome, Italy;1. Division of Gastroenterology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri;2. Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas;1. Dept. INDEK, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-114 28, Stockholm, Sweden;2. Department of Organization Sciences & Network Institute, VU University Amsterdam, Netherlands |
| |
| Abstract: | Combining different data sets with information on grant and fellowship applications submitted to two renowned funding agencies, we are able to compare their funding decisions (award and rejection) with scientometric performance indicators across two fields of science (life sciences and social sciences). The data sets involve 671 applications in social sciences and 668 applications in life sciences. In both fields, awarded applicants perform on average better than all rejected applicants. If only the most preeminent rejected applicants are considered in both fields, they score better than the awardees on citation impact. With regard to productivity we find differences between the fields. While the awardees in life sciences outperform on average the most preeminent rejected applicants, the situation is reversed in social sciences. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
